I don't know if anyone saw the news today, but apparently the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster underwent a schism. Some worshippers broke away, claiming that the use of mushroom and garlic sauce was an equally valid way of honouring the FSM as tomato sauce. FSM fundamentalists are...
I agree. How can a non-materialistic entity interact with material beings such as ourselves, or in the material world that we live in? Give me material, tangible, tomato-covered pasta any day!
Could the story of the virgin conception be just another way in which christianity repressed sex? Naturally, it would have to acknowledge that Mary gave birth (unless jesus was found in the cabbage patch), but told the story in such a way that the use of 'fornication' was not part of the equation?
I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I'll end my argument here. I'm not wishing to offend you, Tarasan. I'm merely pointing out that what may be seen as a valid religion to some will appear as an illogical or made up religion to others. Religion is incredibly tribal in it's nature - each...
I agree, but we can have an idea about whether some concepts are more plausible than others. To me, Pastafarianism is as equally valid as christianity, islam, pink unicorn etc.
Surely a religion doesn't give qualities to it's deities, but instead the deities have those qualities which the religion acknowledges. If we give qualities to our deities, that could imply that we are creating them as we want them to be.
I think the idea is that ALL religions are made up - Pastafarianism included. Like any other religion, can you disprove Pastafarianism? Can you think of any religion that hasn't been made up or invented?
Danmac.
I posted this question to you recently:
Any thoughts about this? You talk about viewing the same evidence as a biologist would, but the difference is in the interpretation of that evidence. The bible offers no interpretation of the evidence, so why are you so resolute in your views?