Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was not a raptor.

[Ħ]

The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof.  I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)?  I am trying to see the logic here.  Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"?  I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.

2) This is more directed toward Christian people.  Is there truth in omission?  For example...the "gap theory" that says there is a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, on account of there being darkness, God commanding man to replenish the earth, etc., even though there isn't really a direct passage or even a verse that proves or disproves such a claim.

I haven't looked into the gap theory in too much depth, so I don't really agree or disagree with it.  I'm just using it as an example.

[Implode]

Well, according to Catholicism, all of Genesis before Abraham didn't necessarily happen. The two completely different stories of creation are two different stories which purposes are not actually about how God created the world. The first is to emphasize that all God made was good, and I don't remember what the second was...maybe to tell how we should take care of the Earth and its inhabitants? Also, it sets up for the fall as well.

...I'm not sure that actually answers you question, but I've never of this gap theory regarding Gen. 1 and 2.

Now that I think of it...at one time wasn't there a saying that went: "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus wasn't black"?

EDIT: Wow. You actually said Gen. 1:1 and 1:2...sorry for not really contributing anything...

[Ħ]

Thanks for your input.  I guess the general idea can be applied to Catholic beliefs too, in that, from my understanding, Catholics and other liberal interpreters of the Bible will take many things allegorically and not literally.  The creation is one example.  But my quesiton is, how do you decide what things you take literally and what things you take allegorically?  I think bosk1 said in a different thread that there wasn't exactly a specific verse that says you shouldn't take the six-day creation literally, but on the same token there isn't a verse that says you should take it literally.  Thoughts?  And can you clarify Catholicism's take on this?

[William Wallace]

The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof.  I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)?  I am trying to see the logic here.  Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"?  I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.

I think you're right.

2) This is more directed toward Christian people.  Is there truth in omission?  For example...the "gap theory" that says there is a gap of time between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2, on account of there being darkness, God commanding man to replenish the earth, etc., even though there isn't really a direct passage or even a verse that proves or disproves such a claim.

[/quote]
There's truth in omission, in my opinion. But we have to be careful about inserting ideas into the text that were clearly never intended. I think the gap theory is one example. Concluding that there's a massive gap between verses 1 and 2 requires some pretty nifty exegesis.

[TheVoxyn]

The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof.  I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)?  I am trying to see the logic here.  Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"?  I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.

Because both things are beliefs that cannot be proven and require a certain faith to believe in. A flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as a god.

[rumborak]

I think there is truth in omission, but only the basest of facts can be inferred that way, ones that are corroborated by a lot of outside factors. It can't serve as a playground for wild theories, for example to make literalism work.

rumborak

[jsem]

Since symbolism is used quite liberally in the Bible... I'd say there's truth in omission.

[El JoNNo]

Since symbolism is used quite liberally in the Bible... I'd say there's truth in omission.

That's based off your interpretation, many people have disagreements of what is symbolism and what is not. Omission typically is only a justifiable argument in extraordinary or specific cases. Such as when zombies roamed the earth in Mathew. There is no mention any where else but the bible for that so we can assume it is bull cocky.

[rumborak]

This somewhat plays into the thread topic, but I think what is almost never justifiable is what I would call "deep analysis" of Biblical passages. That is, instead of going by the obvious meaning of a passage (e.g. Jesus saying no stone will be left unturned when the Kingdom comes), a secondary, "deeper" message is derived from the passage (here, Jesus foreseeing the destruction of the temple in 70AD).

rumborak

[Ħ]

The thread title is an internet meme that is based off this popular concept that mocks the idea that you can believe something without hard proof.  I guess it's also related to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

1) Why is this said about Christianity (and every faith in general)?  I am trying to see the logic here.  Is it the idea that people walk around saying "You can't disprove God, so therefore he exists"?  I don't want to put any more words in people's mouths, so please tell me.

Because both things are beliefs that cannot be proven and require a certain faith to believe in. A flying spaghetti monster is just as likely as a god.

This is what I don't understand.  Supposing I'm a guy with an uncorrupted mind, free of bias, observing the world, which, arguably, I am.  I see evidence of a creator through the creation.  Now, it wouldn't be fair of me to make any claims about the creator other than he's the creator.  The claim that he's a flying spaghetti monster is just as invalid as the claim that the creator is just, is loving, or is even all powerful.

What also doesn't make sense is that the FSM is an attack on the probability of a god, because it's not really a probability issue at all.  It's a where-does-the-evidence-point issue.

I have no idea what I'm trying to say.  Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.

[7StringedBeast]

And maybe your creator is just a bunch of laws of physics and some matter?  Who knows?

[rumborak]

I have no idea what I'm trying to say.  Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.

That's pretty much where I stand really. I can see if someone wants to argue the existence of a creator, but even that doesn't answer anything (who created the creator?). But from that point on (that something created this universe), you know it's pretty much all wrong. Especially the major religions.

rumborak

[Ħ]

I have no idea what I'm trying to say.  Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.

That's pretty much where I stand really. I can see if someone wants to argue the existence of a creator, but even that doesn't answer anything (who created the creator?). But from that point on (that something created this universe), you know it's pretty much all wrong. Especially the major religions.

rumborak

Well, I was about to say, that's where hunting for religion comes in.  Once you confirm that there was a creator in your own mind, you go out and try to see if he's communicated with us, so that you can give him certain attributes.  It's step 2 of the process, while determining the existence of a creator is step 1.  I think the FSM critique sort of blends the two together.

But as to which religion is from the creator, or even if there even is anything, is a whole other discussion. 

[GuineaPig]

FSM started as a specific criticism of teaching creationism in public schools.

[Ħ]

Upon reading wikipedia, I guess it was initially an attack on intelligent design, and later Christian creationism.  Kinda silly if you ask me...the teaching of intelligent design is religiously ambigous, while the FSM religion is specific.  So...fail.

[rumborak]

It was actually a quite witty attack IMHO, because it showcased the arbitrariness of endorsing Christian theology in a school curriculum.
Intelligent design has never been an "academic field" disassociated from Christian theology. If you read the judge's statement in the Dover trial, he pretty much rants for several paragraphs about how ID is just another version of Creationism, and how they in some cases only did a word replacement in the documents.

Well, I was about to say, that's where hunting for religion comes in.  Once you confirm that there was a creator in your own mind, you go out and try to see if he's communicated with us, so that you can give him certain attributes.

I see no reason to believe that something that put the universe in place at least 14 billion years ago, is "communicating" with us. That's where the whole thing make the transition from evidence-based (the universe is here) to wishful thinking (I would like to be part of this grand scheme).

rumborak

[j]

And can you clarify Catholicism's take on this?

To my knowledge, this is one of many areas where the Catholic Church allows for different takes on the topic.  That is, it's acceptable for a Catholic to interpret the creation story in Genesis literally or figuratively.

This is what I don't understand.  Supposing I'm a guy with an uncorrupted mind, free of bias, observing the world, which, arguably, I am.  I see evidence of a creator through the creation.  Now, it wouldn't be fair of me to make any claims about the creator other than he's the creator.  The claim that he's a flying spaghetti monster is just as invalid as the claim that the creator is just, is loving, or is even all powerful.

What also doesn't make sense is that the FSM is an attack on the probability of a god, because it's not really a probability issue at all.  It's a where-does-the-evidence-point issue.

I have no idea what I'm trying to say.  Maybe I'm just upset that the FSM idea mocks something that I'm conceding to...that we can't draw any more conclusions about the creator other than he's just a creator.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this post (except for the part of supposing to have no bias ).  It's not something that there's any point arguing because it comes down to personal feeling.  The FSM thing is just somebody's childish way of ridiculing the other side.

-J

[GuineaPig]

I think that the FSM was a brilliant bit of satire.  Allowing creationism to be taught alongside evolution is ludicrous, and deserved every bit of derision thrown at it.

[Ħ]

That's kinda mean-spirited doncha think?

Obviously there are major issues science teaches will have with 6000 years and all.  But what's wrong with saying, "Oh yeah, well we don't exactly know how the planet began and how life began, so here's a couple theories so you can decide for yourself.  And those are: Big-Bang Theory, Intelligent Design creating everything, etc."

[7StringedBeast]

That's kinda mean-spirited doncha think?

Obviously there are major issues science teaches will have with 6000 years and all.  But what's wrong with saying, "Oh yeah, well we don't exactly know how the planet began and how life began, so here's a couple theories so you can decide for yourself.  And those are: Big-Bang Theory, Intelligent Design creating everything, etc."

Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools because there is no scientific basis for it.  There is nothing in science supporting intelligent design, so why teach it?  It's a cop-out in the science world, until scientific evidence comes up for it.

[Ħ]

What about the scientific evidence of....well, things existing?

[7StringedBeast]

What about the scientific evidence of....well, things existing?

All that tells us is that stuff is here.  It says nothing of where it came from.  So still no evidence that an intelligent design created it.  Based on that alone, it is just as valid that the big bang is true.  Why?  Because things exist.

[GuineaPig]

Intelligent design is not falsifiable.  It is therefore not a scientific hypothesis.  That's all there is to it.

[Ħ]

Intelligent design is not falsifiable.  It is therefore not a scientific hypothesis.  That's all there is to it.

Sounds good to me.  Let's move on.

Back to the main point that the FSM is a really childish snipe that I am honestly surprised to see supported by such...mature...scientists and professors.  I mean, come on guys.

[GuineaPig]

Quote from the founder on the wiki page:

"I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science."

I don't think FSM is any more harsh a criticism of religiosity, than, say, Life of Brian.

[AcidLameLTE]

Would you prefer Russell's Teapot?

[7StringedBeast]

I for one, wish Jesus was a raptor.   

[Ħ]

I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking?  It's kinda nasty to be mocking.  There are better ways to express your view.

[jsem]

I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking?  It's kinda nasty to be mocking.  There are better ways to express your view.

Agree 100% with this.

[7StringedBeast]

I think it is absurd for anything religion to be talked about in a science class.  Religion belongs in history, theology or philosophy.

[jsem]

I think it is absurd for anything religion to be talked about in a science class.  Religion belongs in history, theology or philosophy.

Agreed.

[rumborak]

I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking?  It's kinda nasty to be mocking.  There are better ways to express your view.

I think you're a bit too "inside" of your belief system to realize how ridiculous the claims of Christianity sound to an outsider. I'm pretty sure you would mock somebody equally as much if he was trying to get his geocentric belief taught in science class.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

The difference, imo, between the beliefs of many of what people would call "cults" versus more established religions is just time.  I think people too easily dismiss those that don't agree with them as having some sort of fundamental problem (i.e. stupidity), which imo is a vast oversimplification.

EDIT: The latter sentence applies to non-theists as well.

[Ħ]

I get the idea behind it, but why be so...mocking?  It's kinda nasty to be mocking.  There are better ways to express your view.

I think you're a bit too "inside" of your belief system to realize how ridiculous the claims of Christianity sounds to a bystander.

rumborak

Well I went through high school as an anti-Christian, anti-creationist, anti-ID atheist, and here I am two years later "batting for the other team" if you will.  I've come to understand is that in any type of debate--religious, political, ethical, whatever--both sides are horribly misrepresented.  I hate to generalize, but non-Christians have the view that Bible thumpers are blind science-shunning idiots when that is simply not the case.  On the flip side, a lot of Christians have unfortunate misunderstandings of many scientific theories (such as evolution).  In the end, it just results in two hostile, belittling, straw men arguments, and I wish that both sides learn to listen and present their points respectfully.  When someone comes along and says believing in God is as ridiculous as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that's both hostile (whether you admit it or not) and provokes the other side to hostility, and nobody gets anywhere.

tl;dr I try my best to understand both sides, and have represented both sides, so I don't think I'm falling victim to my ludicrous belief system.

[jsem]

Agree 100% with BrotherH on this.

Both sides should be more tolerant tbh.