Pastafarianism

[tarasan]

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 is convinced of it's own validity and all others are just fantasy. That was my point. Peace.

i think youll find logic is universal friend, and no your not offending me I just find it funny how people cling to those two things

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

true I used the wrong wording excuse me, the point is merely making your thing ridulously illogical and slapping the name God onto it doesnt make every other God concept out their illogical, however Athiests tend to believe it is and its a little sad

I think you've got it backwards. It's not that the IPU somehow makes other gods illogical; it's an illustration to show theists who do believe in those other gods how their beliefs come across to some atheists.

thats stupid logical immpossibilities cannot exist the flying spegetti monster and pink unicorn have logical fallacies thrown about them so they cannot exist.

Same goes for many deities that people believe in - that's part of the point.

There's not a lot of logical distance from "our god is pink, but you still can't see it" to "our god has perfect foreknowledge, but you still have free will."

However, I don't actually see any inherent logical fallacities or impossibilities in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sure, he's very, very implausible, but that's not the same thing.

What grounds do you have to reject the FSM? The fact that spaghetti can't fly? Can't I then turn around and reject Christ on the grounds that people don't come back from the dead or walk on water?

If your god gets to appeal to miracles to get around apparent impossibilities, why can't the FSM?

 

[tarasan]

I think you've got it backwards. It's not that the IPU somehow makes other gods illogical; it's an illustration to show theists who do believe in those other gods how their beliefs come across to some atheists.


Same goes for many deities that people believe in - that's part of the point.

There's not a lot of logical distance from "our god is pink, but you still can't see it" to "our god has perfect foreknowledge, but you still have free will."

However, I don't actually see any inherent logical fallacities or impossibilities in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sure, he's very, very implausible, but that's not the same thing.

What grounds do you have to reject the FSM? The fact that spaghetti can't fly? Can't I then turn around and reject Christ on the grounds that people don't come back from the dead or walk on water?

If your god gets to appeal to miracles to get around apparent impossibilities, why can't the FSM?

Firstly foreknowledge is a very in depth subject with alot of viewpoints and I would advise broadstroking it in the way that you have.

also the spegetti monster is impossible because he is made of material, which means he must have been in a created world from the beginning.

and seeing as in you cant "make yourself" it is impossible for him to exist, he would literaly of had to pull himself into existence which is absurd.

That is why all the major religions define their God as materialess, and timeless so that they dont get into this problem. he was before time in eternity, therefore he/she didnt need a beginning he just was.

 

[The Enlightened One]

also the spegetti monster is impossible because he is made of material, which means he must have been in a created world from the beginning.
and seeing as in you cant "make yourself" it is impossible for him to exist, he would literaly of had to pull himself into existence which is absurd.

That is why all the major religions define their God as materialess, and timeless so that they dont get into this problem. he was before time in eternity, therefore he/she didnt need a beginning he just was.

I don't find it absurd at all. It is just as plausable as a god "always having been". Just because HE is made of material doesn't make it any more impossible, and definately not any more illogical. If you look at the big bang theory, it is illogical but alot of people believe it.
The whole 'there was nothing before him because he was always there' line is the same as a parent sayng 'because I said so'. It is devoid of an explanation and originates out of not being able to answer the question without raising contradictions(not to mention illogical as you like to keep saying ).
Logic is subject to the person perceiving it. If MAN can create spaghetti, I'm pretty sure an omnipotent entity would have no problem whatsoever creating a physical self of the same stuff; especially if he 'always was' which would mean that he is not material but mere consciousness and energy, he could have made himself into pasta...
I'm just tired of the whole "illogical" b-s. If you look at it our whole existance is illogical.

I'm not trying to come off offensive, so I'm sorry if it seems this way lol

 

[tarasan]

I don't find it absurd at all. It is just as plausable as a god "always having been". Just because HE is made of material doesn't make it any more impossible, and definately not any more illogical. If you look at the big bang theory, it is illogical but alot of people believe it.
The whole 'there was nothing before him because he was always there' line is the same as a parent sayng 'because I said so'. It is devoid of an explanation and originates out of not being able to answer the question without raising contradictions(not to mention illogical as you like to keep saying ).
Logic is subject to the person perceiving it. If MAN can create spaghetti, I'm pretty sure an omnipotent entity would have no problem whatsoever creating a physical self of the same stuff; especially if he 'always was' which would mean that he is not material but mere consciousness and energy, he could have made himself into pasta...
I'm just tired of the whole "illogical" b-s. If you look at it our whole existance is illogical.

I'm not trying to come off offensive, so I'm sorry if it seems this way lol

but the thing about the spegetti monster is that he IS made of stuff it isnt that he just fashioned this body, its what he is, which makes him illogical.

and the big bang theory isnt illogical, infact its perfect plausible seeing as in have mathematics and evidence to back it up.

and its because of the big bang theory that we can show logically that there was a beginning of space and time, its perfectly logical to say anything before couldnt have been made of matter, space or time, because those didnt exist until after the big bang. Its perfectly plausible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Firstly foreknowledge is a very in depth subject with alot of viewpoints and I would advise broadstroking it in the way that you have.

Vision and colour are very in-depth subjects as well, yet you seem to have no problem "broadstroking" the IPU and the FSM.

also the spegetti monster is impossible because he is made of material, which means he must have been in a created world from the beginning.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't literally made of pasta. He simply manifests in a form that resembles pasta. I'm very disappointed with your treatment of this in-depth subject.

and seeing as in you cant "make yourself" it is impossible for him to exist, he would literaly of had to pull himself into existence which is absurd.

How is this point an argument against the FSM but not an argument against any creator-god?

That is why all the major religions define their God as materialess, and timeless so that they dont get into this problem. he was before time in eternity, therefore he/she didnt need a beginning he just was.

They do get into this problem; they just pretend like the problem doesn't exist. If something is entirely non-material, then it also completely lacks any way to interact with the material universe. This might be okay for some deistic god-concepts, but it's absolute trouble for gods that are actively involved with their creation. Once you say that your god manipulates matter, you imply that your god is material in some form or another.

I don't see how the FSM is any more susceptible to this problem than any other god. IMO, a deity that looks like a big nest of pasta with meatballs can "poof" himself into existence as easily as a deity that looks like an old guy with a long, white beard.

 

[tarasan]

Vision and colour are very in-depth subjects as well, yet you seem to have no problem "broadstroking" the IPU and the FSM.


The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't literally made of pasta. He simply manifests in a form that resembles pasta. I'm very disappointed with your treatment of this in-depth subject.


How is this point an argument against the FSM but not an argument against any creator-god?


They do get into this problem; they just pretend like the problem doesn't exist. If something is entirely non-material, then it also completely lacks any way to interact with the material universe. This might be okay for some deistic god-concepts, but it's absolute trouble for gods that are actively involved with their creation. Once you say that your god manipulates matter, you imply that your god is material in some form or another.

I don't see how the FSM is any more susceptible to this problem than any other god. IMO, a deity that looks like a big nest of pasta with meatballs can "poof" himself into existence as easily as a deity that looks like an old guy with a long, white beard.

well then the FSm isnt a speggetti monster then is he?

state to me how they couldnt interact with this world that sounds very presumpious when you create a material world you can manipulate any way you want, after all you made it so i dont see you point.

no he cant because the spagetti monster started off as a material object so he had to be made and is subject to time so he is not timeless. my God is not material he was before the creation of time so he does not have to be made.

 

[Noaidi]

They do get into this problem; they just pretend like the problem doesn't exist. If something is entirely non-material, then it also completely lacks any way to interact with the material universe. This might be okay for some deistic god-concepts, but it's absolute trouble for gods that are actively involved with their creation. Once you say that your god manipulates matter, you imply that your god is material in some form or another.

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!

 

[The Enlightened One]

but the thing about the spegetti monster is that he IS made of stuff it isnt that he just fashioned this body, its what he is, which makes him illogical.

and the big bang theory isnt illogical, infact its perfect plausible seeing as in have mathematics and evidence to back it up.

and its because of the big bang theory that we can show logically that there was a beginning of space and time, its perfectly logical to say anything before couldnt have been made of matter, space or time, because those didnt exist until after the big bang. Its perfectly plausible.

This big bang IS plausible, but it still has it own contradictions. According to the theory, ALL matter existed in a singularity with no spacial dimensions(defies ALL logic seeing how matter has length, width, and height). And if that singularity was there, then space had to exist to contain that singularity. As for proof of the big bang, that doesn't mean anything. What proof do we have other than the expansion of the universe? Nothing. The big bang theory therefore is just as illogical as a flying spaghetti monster seeing how it must have came out of nowhere at all going by your arguments.

I appreciate you sharing your point of view with me, as I respect it, as should everyone else.

 

[tarasan]

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!

what reason is there that says that it cant? I mean it really sounds like you guys are trying to make up rules here.... I see no reason why it couldnt, unless you have know a reason why it couldnt manipulate the enviroment it created?

 

[tarasan]

This big bang IS plausible, but it still has it own contradictions. According to the theory, ALL matter existed in a singularity with no spacial dimensions(defies ALL logic seeing how matter has length, width, and height). And if that singularity was there, then space had to exist to contain that singularity. As for proof of the big bang, that doesn't mean anything. What proof do we have other than the expansion of the universe? Nothing. The big bang theory therefore is just as illogical as a flying spaghetti monster seeing how it must have came out of nowhere at all going by your arguments.

I appreciate you sharing your point of view with me, as I respect it, as should everyone else.

actually if you look at big bang cosmology the singular orignially was zero as in nothing, then it grew out, and it doesnt defy all logic you merely have to come to a conclusion that there was outside of spacetime to create such an even, slap that on and its perfectly plausible.

that is why the naturalistic worldview falls down the big bang is impossible if you only look through its eyes, but in a thiestic worldview its perfectly logical/plausible

 

[The Enlightened One]

actually if you look at big bang cosmology the singular orignially was zero as in nothing, then it grew out, and it doesnt defy all logic you merely have to come to a conclusion that there was outside of spacetime to create such an even, slap that on and its perfectly plausible.

That's what throws the big bang theory out. You said that we have evidence and math to back it up. All I see is the theory not being theoretically possible so it has to be modified for it to work. None of it is set in stone, it's guess work which could be as far from what actually happened as any other theory(such as the FSM). As for the math, if you look at General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics they don't agree with each other so other theories have to be made to make up for it. It is JUST as plausible as a material omnipotent being; that's what I was getting at.

that is why the naturalistic worldview falls down the big bang is impossible if you only look through its eyes, but in a thiestic worldview its perfectly logical/plausible

Can't argue with you there

 

[Noaidi]

what reason is there that says that it cant? I mean it really sounds like you guys are trying to make up rules here.... I see no reason why it couldnt, unless you have know a reason why it couldnt manipulate the enviroment it created?

Well, to turn it round, what evidence is there that a non-material entity CAN manipulate the physical world?
What is a non-material entity anyway?

 

[Noaidi]

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 clamouring for ex-communication of the 'mushies', saying that unless the sacrament is sun-dried tomato, they will adamantly oppose any other sauce. The Holy Macaroni Fraternity (another splinter group of the FSM) are watching proceedings with interest because, as we all know, they were the first to use cheese as a sacrament - again initially condemned as blasphemous by the FSM.
Stay tuned....

 

[The Enlightened One]

Garlic ewww, such blasphemy!!!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

well then the FSm isnt a speggetti monster then is he?

Again: he has the appearance of spaghetti.

state to me how they couldnt interact with this world that sounds very presumpious when you create a material world you can manipulate any way you want, after all you made it so i dont see you point.

Look at it this way: how do you define "material"? Give me a valid definition for the word that the Flying Spaghetti Monster meets but your god doesn't.

no he cant because the spagetti monster started off as a material object so he had to be made and is subject to time so he is not timeless. my God is not material he was before the creation of time so he does not have to be made.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wasn't made. He's as timeless as your god.

And there's no such thing as "before the creation of time". That's like saying "north of the north pole".

 

[Smoke]

Although FSM-ism was just a jab at secularity, I feel that in due time that this phenomenon could go beyond viral and become a legitimate religion for followers of intelligent-design.

That would certainly be ironic.

 

[Smoke]

Indeed but Iders dont care which God it is that something they strictly adhere too, to them a spegetti monster is just as acceptable as yahweh, to them its the sceince of creationism not which God it is.

No, you're very badly mistaken. They care deeply about which god it is, but they've learned not emphasize that fact.

true I used the wrong wording excuse me, the point is merely making your thing ridulously illogical and slapping the name God onto it doesnt make every other God concept out their illogical

The FSM and IPU aren't really mocking every god-concept out there. Just the dominant ones.

I have nothing against athiests, however I DO feel that most are extremely bull headed to say they KNOW FOR A FACT that there are no dieties.

Well, I don't say I know it for a fact. I just say I don't believe it. I think the majority of atheists do the same. However, I do find that many theists are extremely bull-headed, claiming to know for a fact that there is a god or gods.

 

[Ecclectic Seeker]

In a way, yes. That was the original intent. Bobby Henderson created it in protest to the Kansas State board of education's decision to include the teaching of ID alongside evolution in science classes. It was insanely intollerant but well put together. He argued that FSM-ism should be alotted equal time in the classroom, with the hopes of overturning their decision. I for one agree with what he did, as I believe that religion has no place in a science class.

I actually disagree with you on this one. ID isn't a "religion", rather an alternate theory of "how we got here" that, yes, involves a divine figure, of some sort, but not necessarily certain "god". IE, it does not promote the idea that Yaweh, or Allah, or Krishna, or Ptah created the world, but rather that SOMETHING did.

To give a monopoly over the truth to Evolutionism would be as destructive as giving a monopoly over the truth to ID. Who is to say what the truth is? Rather, when students are exposed to theories, no matter how well-supported said theory is, they should be given a taste of opposing theories as well, and encouraged to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. No one theory should be taught as unopposed fact.

I mean, who knows? Darwinism could turn out to be wrong, we might just not have all the knowledge yet. If you lived back when all the scientific facts seemed to point to Geocentricism, would you have insisted that heliocentric theories be banned from presentation in schools?

 

[The Enlightened One]

Well, I don't say I know it for a fact. I just say I don't believe it. I think the majority of atheists do the same.

Wouldn't that be agnostic?

However, I do find that many theists are extremely bull-headed, claiming to know for a fact that there is a god or gods.

True