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
Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Admiral Breetai » Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:36 pm

What SWSt fails to understand as a Dogmatic Athiest and yes, SWST your so forceful and intolerant you are beyond simply not believing in god as a personal choice..at this point you adhere to a fucking religion and sure do act like it.

Is that, Evolution and The origins of the universe as we understand them do not preclude the existence of a divine being or divine guidance

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 Sep 03, 2011 9:29 am

as i work on my response, i am amazed that noone has posted this already. i was going to wait until i was done to post anything new, but jesus, guys, come on.

ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT SWST IS A DISHONEST, RULE CHANGING LIAR

from SWST's first post-
StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Are there any Christians here? If there are, I would politely request a logical explanation as to how Christianity is a more rationally credible religion than the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. If I were to go theist, I am considering these two religions as the one to go for, and I need help as to which one is the true path to salvation. Thank you.
from SWST's last post-
StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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.
i have to say i was somewhat surprised to find that we are not arguing about which religion is the more likely to be a reasonable path to salvation, since, you know, the original request was for assistance determining which was more likely to be a reasonable path to salvation. please, swst, explain to me how this makes sense.

thank you and good night!

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 Sep 03, 2011 9:55 am

Admiral Breetai wrote:What SWSt fails to understand as a Dogmatic Athiest and yes, SWST your so forceful and intolerant you are beyond simply not believing in god as a personal choice..at this point you adhere to a fucking religion and sure do act like it.

Is that, Evolution and The origins of the universe as we understand them do not preclude the existence of a divine being or divine guidance
the hilarious thing about debating swst is that there's kind of a masochistic thrill to it. there's that feeling of 'goddammit, if i can just make the next argument good enough, he'll admit at least that one point!'
SWST IS LUCY HOLDING THE FOOTBALL
SFJ IS CHARLIE BROWN

i agree though, and dawkins has admitted on numerous occasions that he is as close-minded as any religious fanatic.

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 Sep 03, 2011 11:06 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote: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.
According to the Bible, the world was created as all good. The present universe, OTOH, is under the power of the Devil (1. John 5:19), who is the ruler and god* of this existence (John 12:31, 2. Corinthians 4:4). However, it's a bit easy to blame all our present wretchedness on Satan when God is (as you note) omnipotent. It's He who permits us to suffer -- He's delivered us over to the Devil, though He also still protects us to some extent. (As bad as the world is, it could be much worse with a completely malign entity in full control of it.)

The reason God has us suffer on this Earth is, according to the Bible, as correction and punishment for our sins. Not just Original Sin, as it's often simplified, but all our sins. Yours, mine and everyone else's. In God's eye (who is all good), we who have evil in us deserve the punishment. In fact, we deserve worse than we get. Because an omnibenevolent God can (obviously) not tolerate any evil at all.

You may take issue with that. But as a Christian I don't, for obvious reasons. Then again, I also believe our sufferings in this world are very small compared to the eternal life and joy we will experience in the world to come, where there will be no evil of any kind left.


*Note, small letter -- not a true God (with the big G), but powerful celestial being having vast and in some measure God-like control over humanity and nature alike.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Picard » Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:45 am

Actually, no. Satan has no direct power over corporal beings (he can only "urge" us to do something), and God chooses not to (giving free will to someone and then controlling him is pretty contradictory). As such, we are fully free to choose our own path, with all consequences of it.

BTW, Hell is not a place (especially not one with real fires) but rather a state of complete separation from God; "hellish fires" in that context are description of pain which soul that is separated from God endures.

And that is all there is to it.

And I generally alternate between this and "God created universe and then went to bed with Satan not even existing" view; but differences are not large (Hell is always there).

As for Apple; it is metaphorical, but there is some truth to it - originally, people did not differentiate between "good" and "evil"; they just did - did what they thought necessary, just like animals. As time passed, we got conceptions of good and evil, and later also concepts of hell and heaven.

EDIT: But that does not mean that Bible is not good historical source; you only have to differentiate between (obvious) myths and real history; as such, it is possible (and indeed likely) that Great Flood happened (why not? I mean, all you need for it is lots of water and one large rock) - althought it certainly did not happen exactly as described (not enough water).

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature ... -flood.htm

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... _flood.htm

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1777
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sat Sep 10, 2011 9:23 pm

The great flood happened many times

the Toba eruption comes as close as you can get to the revelations story about the end times and claimed about a comparable amount of dead

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 Sep 11, 2011 9:35 am

i had this long ass post i was working on for this, but as days go by i realize it would be pointless. i think pretty much everyone would agree i did in fact provide what was originally asked for time and again, and even allowed a simple out for him near the beginning. the fact that he chose to dishonestly keep changing the rules (dude, you argued the definition of a word with the DICTIONARY) rather than concede obviously shouldn't have surprised me, but somehow it did, and it took me ages to be able to stop.

Picard
Starship Captain
Posts: 1433
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by Picard » Fri Sep 16, 2011 6:41 am

2. The FSM is within space time/affected by space-time/science, but He isn't, just like how Christians use this to justify their God violating physics.
Humans can violate physics... sometimes. Ever heard of telekinesis and telephaty?

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

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:03 am

General Donner wrote: According to the Bible, the world was created as all good.
Including us? Obviously not; we apparently sinned once, and we couldn’t possibly have sinned if we were already pure good.
The present universe, OTOH, is under the power of the Devil (1. John 5:19), who is the ruler and god* of this existence (John 12:31, 2. Corinthians 4:4). However, it's a bit easy to blame all our present wretchedness on Satan when God is (as you note) omnipotent. It's He who permits us to suffer -- He's delivered us over to the Devil, though He also still protects us to some extent. (As bad as the world is, it could be much worse with a completely malign entity in full control of it.)


And this is supposed to be in defense of Christianity?

If a ruler permits his people to suffer, do we worship him and call him the lord our savior? Once you judge God’s actions without always giving him leeway for being an allegedly supreme being, his actions become far more difficult to defend.
The reason God has us suffer on this Earth is, according to the Bible, as correction and punishment for our sins.
Yet this runs into several problems.

1. What about miscarriages, mental retardation and other tragedies that take lives before they ever have a chance to sin?
2. Is this punishment an attempt to help humanity improve, or simply vengeance? Because I don’t imagine that illness, crime and poverty help the human race as a whole.
3. Our suffering has no correlation with moral goodness or religious faith.
Not just Original Sin, as it's often simplified, but all our sins. Yours, mine and everyone else's. In God's eye (who is all good), we who have evil in us deserve the punishment. In fact, we deserve worse than we get. Because an omnibenevolent God can (obviously) not tolerate any evil at all.
But that is the problem. Church dogma preaches that all men are evil in one way or another, and any person who denies having sinned is a liar, and that sinning at all makes one worthy of hell, with only the salvation of Christ being sufficient to save you.

But, all of our sins are a result of human nature, allegedly programmed by God. For example, lust is a sin; yet lust is also a natural emotion necessary to the propagation of our species. Jealousy is a sin; yet jealousy is an involuntary evolutionary adoption in a competitive universe.

The problem is that the bible punishes thought crimes; thinking someone to be a fool is a sin, hating someone is a sin, lusting after someone is a sin, yet all of these are involuntary emotions that God gave us. We can choose to suppress and not act on them yes. But it is ridiculously self-contradicting for God to tell us that it is impossible for us to not sin by nature…but he still gets mad that this is so. Well hey, he’s the one that made it so!





Picard wrote:
Humans can violate physics... sometimes. Ever heard of telekinesis and telephaty?
I...

I don't know what to say to this. Please, tell me you are joking.

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 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:23 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Including us? Obviously not; we apparently sinned once, and we couldn’t possibly have sinned if we were already pure good.
Man was created good, in the image of God. But unlike man of the present day (who, according to Christian belief, is of a sinful and corrupt nature), the first man and woman had a truly free will, and could choose to sin. I suppose you could take issue with a definition of "good" that includes that element.
And this is supposed to be in defense of Christianity?
Not a formal apology as such, by any means. Just an answer to a question. Manifestly, the present world is not good, which is what we would expect of a good Creator.

(Incidentally, this becomes a problem for Muslims, since Islam argues that there was never any Fall and this world is fully good and perfect, and if you think otherwise you're a heretic. But I digress.)
If a ruler permits his people to suffer, do we worship him and call him the lord our savior? Once you judge God’s actions without always giving him leeway for being an allegedly supreme being, his actions become far more difficult to defend.
I'd say that if we judge an omniscient entity by the standards of our own greatly limited intelligence and knowledge, it's rather to be expected that its actions will often appear arbitrary to us. Can you remember when you were a child, and understood very little of what your parents said and did? And yet, the mental divide between you then was far lesser than that between the most intelligent man on Earth and God.
1. What about miscarriages, mental retardation and other tragedies that take lives before they ever have a chance to sin?
Surely to a secular atheist, a miscarriage does not claim any life, since unborn children are neither people nor even living beings?

Mental retardation we will commonly view as a tragedy, but the individuals who suffer from it are still human beings with unique personalities. I have known several people who haven't been particularly bright (or who have suffered from other mental problems, such as autism) who have nevertheless been what I would call "good people" by the standards of this world, and who have also lived what would at least seem to be quite fulfilling lives. I don't believe they are, as a whole, a great problem for humanity, or personally tragic.
2. Is this punishment an attempt to help humanity improve, or simply vengeance? Because I don’t imagine that illness, crime and poverty help the human race as a whole.
I would argue that they can certainly help individuals, at any rate. We can perceive the acts of God in the strangest things. And a certain amount of suffering will build character.

God's doings as a whole are, as usual, far beyond me to speculate on. But from my readings of the Bible, I believe I can conclude that our temporary sufferings on Earth serve both a corrective and a punitive purpose. (As opposed to eternal punishment after death, which is purely punitive.)
3. Our suffering has no correlation with moral goodness or religious faith.
I would argue against that. Statistics show us that high levels of income, education, social standing, etcetera, correlate negatively with religious faith.
The problem is that the bible punishes thought crimes; thinking someone to be a fool is a sin, hating someone is a sin, lusting after someone is a sin, yet all of these are involuntary emotions that God gave us. We can choose to suppress and not act on them yes. But it is ridiculously self-contradicting for God to tell us that it is impossible for us to not sin by nature…but he still gets mad that this is so. Well hey, he’s the one that made it so!
The fallen and corrupt human nature is a necessary product of original sin. The children of a sinful man will inherit sinfulness. It is no part of the original nature of man, which mas made in the image of God.

As God is omnipotent, He obviously permits our sinfulness, since otherwise it could not exist. But we cannot blame Him for our sins. As human beings, we must each be responsible ourselves for whatever we do.

(Which prompts the question of whether you believe in free will? On a purely scientific basis, I don't believe one can reasonably argue against determinism. And if we have no free will for anything we do, obviously there is also no difference in principle between the degree of voluntariness in a thought and an action.)

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

Re: Christianity vs the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Post by StarWarsStarTrek » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:06 pm

General Donner wrote:
Man was created good, in the image of God. But unlike man of the present day (who, according to Christian belief, is of a sinful and corrupt nature), the first man and woman had a truly free will, and could choose to sin. I suppose you could take issue with a definition of "good" that includes that element.
Wait. The phrasing of the bolded sentence implies that we today do not have “true” free will. I’m sorry, maybe I’m reading it wrong.

Not a formal apology as such, by any means. Just an answer to a question. Manifestly, the present world is not good, which is what we would expect of a good Creator.
Which does not make sense, to put it bluntly.


I'd say that if we judge an omniscient entity by the standards of our own greatly limited intelligence and knowledge, it's rather to be expected that its actions will often appear arbitrary to us. Can you remember when you were a child, and understood very little of what your parents said and did? And yet, the mental divide between you then was far lesser than that between the most intelligent man on Earth and God.
You’re right; we should judge an omniscient entity by higher standards than we do with ourselves. The reality is that the argument “God knows best, he works in mysterious ways, all of the geonocide and war and sanction of slavery in the Old Testament has a purpose, it’s just too complex for us puny minds to perceive” isn’t an argument at all as much as it is an appeal to ignorance and circular reasoning; defending God’s omnipotence against logical holes on the basis that his is omnipotent, and is above said logical holes.

Which is fine for faith, bad for evidence.

Surely to a secular atheist, a miscarriage does not claim any life, since unborn children are neither people nor even living beings?
Actually, by a certain stage in the pregnancy, the child develops a functioning brain, at which point abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances is unethical. But we aren’t looking at this from my point of view; we’re looking at it from a Christian perspective, as to why God would kill babies before they had a chance to do anything right or wrong. You cannot say that it is just punishment for a sinful world, because the babies had yet to even be born into it!
Mental retardation we will commonly view as a tragedy, but the individuals who suffer from it are still human beings with unique personalities. I have known several people who haven't been particularly bright (or who have suffered from other mental problems, such as autism) who have nevertheless been what I would call "good people" by the standards of this world, and who have also lived what would at least seem to be quite fulfilling lives. I don't believe they are, as a whole, a great problem for humanity, or personally tragic.
Doubtlessly, many are. My aunt, for example. But other mental retardations cause death in childbirth, and all restrict the free will that God values as so important, he forgoes simply making us unconditionally happy and pure by nature so as to maintain this, yet does nothing to prevent brain damage or genetic diseases.


[quote

I would argue that they can certainly help individuals, at any rate. We can perceive the acts of God in the strangest things. And a certain amount of suffering will build character.

God's doings as a whole are, as usual, far beyond me to speculate on. But from my readings of the Bible, I believe I can conclude that our temporary sufferings on Earth serve both a corrective and a punitive purpose. (As opposed to eternal punishment after death, which is purely punitive.)

[/quote]

Some experiences make people stronger. Others turn children into criminals and emotionally scar us.

[quote
I would argue against that. Statistics show us that high levels of income, education, social standing, etcetera, correlate negatively with religious faith.

[/quote]

Which isn’t very good for the Christian position, and even so, the correlation is hardly absolute.

The fallen and corrupt human nature is a necessary product of original sin. The children of a sinful man will inherit sinfulness. It is no part of the original nature of man, which mas made in the image of God.
Inherit? Inheriting anything is by nature unfair and unjust. You are either punished or rewarded for something you did not do. Here on Earth, it is a good and necessary thing that we, for example, inherit loving parents, or good medical care built up by generations of scientists before us, but why inherit “original sin” from our ancestors? How is this fair or just?
As God is omnipotent, He obviously permits our sinfulness, since otherwise it could not exist. But we cannot blame Him for our sins. As human beings, we must each be responsible ourselves for whatever we do.
From a secular point of view, you are correct. From a religious point of view, God created us, and we are sinful. If I create a machine and it breaks down, it’s sort of my fault. I do not simply point to it and say “IT’S NOT MY FAULT! THE MACHINE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ITSELF!”
(Which prompts the question of whether you believe in free will? On a purely scientific basis, I don't believe one can reasonably argue against determinism. And if we have no free will for anything we do, obviously there is also no difference in principle between the degree of voluntariness in a thought and an action.)
Determinism and Christianity are completely incompatible though, so you would have to rationalize Science (again) in order to make it fit. XD

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 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:29 am

StarWarsStarTrek wrote:Wait. The phrasing of the bolded sentence implies that we today do not have “true” free will. I’m sorry, maybe I’m reading it wrong.
Most major denominations of Protestant Christianity agree, in whole or in part, with the doctrine of total depravity, most commonly associated with Calvinism. Eventhe Roman Catholic Church does not believe that works alone can save a man. Now, on the topic of whether there is an element of free will in human thought in the present day or not, there is significant debate. (Essentially, Calvinists are against and more or less everyone else in favor.) But the opinion that man's will is fully free is rarely held, to my knowledge.
Which does not make sense, to put it bluntly.
Apart from the Fall, I very much agree it doesn't.
You’re right; we should judge an omniscient entity by higher standards than we do with ourselves.
I believe you missed my point. My argument was that we, as fundamentally limited creatures, are constitutionally incapable of rendering competent judgment on an omniscient entity. We simply can't understand its motivations, except when it chooses to explain them to us. (And one might argue we can only understand them imperfectly even then.)
Actually, by a certain stage in the pregnancy, the child develops a functioning brain, at which point abortion in all but the most extreme circumstances is unethical. But we aren’t looking at this from my point of view; we’re looking at it from a Christian perspective, as to why God would kill babies before they had a chance to do anything right or wrong. You cannot say that it is just punishment for a sinful world, because the babies had yet to even be born into it!
Not all of your fellow atheists agree with you. I have read arguments from people who believe even infanticide is not unethical, since infants are sub-sapient creatures and thus no better than animals by their standards.

As for such a case, viewing it from a Christian perspective, I'll say again that I can't speak for God. But if I were to speculate, again, I might argue that such death is no immediate consequence of personal sin. At the same time, death as a physical condition is a consequence of original sin.
Which isn’t very good for the Christian position, and even so, the correlation is hardly absolute.
There appears to be a clearly defined trend that education correlates inversely with Christian faith, and education generally correlates strongly with income. Then again, I suppose such variables as "suffering" are difficult to measure statistically, but by material standards, at least, it would seem that the Godless are more prosperous than the faithful.

Of course, I don't believe this to be necessarily bad for the Christian position.
Inherit? Inheriting anything is by nature unfair and unjust. You are either punished or rewarded for something you did not do. Here on Earth, it is a good and necessary thing that we, for example, inherit loving parents, or good medical care built up by generations of scientists before us, but why inherit “original sin” from our ancestors? How is this fair or just?
Your argumentation assumes that there would be some default condition where man is unaffected by all environmental and hereditary factors. This is not so. We are shaped by what came before us, just as we shape (each one of us, in some small part, though obviously some more so than others) what comes after us. It literally can't be in any other way in a universe that preserves the law of cause and effect. If we attack this principle, we attack reality itself; I, for sure, can't imagine what an acausal universe would be like.

In Christian theology, sin is a metaphysical reality. It shapes heredity as obviously as any purely genetic mutation, and is as "natural" and inherent to present-day humanity as these.
From a secular point of view, you are correct.
Surely not from a deterministic standpoint? For if I truly have no choice in how I act, how then can I be responsible for anything, by any secularist standard? (And indeed, in a secular argument, who is it that I'm responsible to?)
Determinism and Christianity are completely incompatible though, so you would have to rationalize Science (again) in order to make it fit.
I'd argue that they're not, seeing that Calvinism (as deterministic as any atheist philosophy) is a major Christian school embraced by many denominations. They have no problem reconciling the two, and indeed, in my experience they even tend to crib pro-determinist arguments from said atheists in their debates with other Christians.

(Myself, I'm not a determinist, in the sense that I rule out a component of human free will, though I believe that from a secularist viewpoint, determinism makes better sense than any philosophy that allows for free will.)

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 » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:10 am

mojo wrote:the hilarious thing about debating swst is that there's kind of a masochistic thrill to it. there's that feeling of 'goddammit, if i can just make the next argument good enough, he'll admit at least that one point!'
SWST IS LUCY HOLDING THE FOOTBALL
SFJ IS CHARLIE BROWN
Haha, too true. :D

Post Reply