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

[7StringedBeast]

The problem I have when religion gets involved with science, is when "because God exists" becomes an argument.  It's like the filler for what is beyond our own knowledge.  As we find out more through science, the further and further this "because of God" argument has to go into the abyss of what we don't know yet.

This is why I think religion has no place in the scientific community.  It's apples and oranges.  Religion has its place and science has its place.

I personally think there can be some kind of middle.  I tend to think if there is a god, he set up the rules (physics) and let everything go.  But really I feel like physics and science is "god".  I think the rules of the universe govern everything, not some outside being. 

[rumborak]

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.

I agree with you that it is somewhat hostile. Where I disagree is that it doesn't get the discussion anywhere. I honestly think a lot of Christians have a really hard time imagining that there are people who find their beliefs outlandish or even ludicrous. I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.

rumborak

[Ħ]

I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.

That's not true.  The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM.  You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented.  They've got different levels of credibility.

[jsem]

The argument is easily made as spaghetti wasn't invented til about 1300 years ago. But then again, an apologist would say that FSM was the reason spaghetti was created in the first place..

I get the point.

[7StringedBeast]

Spaghetti was invented in the honor of the FSM.  Don't disrespect aerial pasta.

[eric42434224]

I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.

That's not true.  The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM.  You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented.  They've got different levels of credibility.

What exactly makes the christian god existing more credible than the FSM existing?

[jsem]

I think this thread should be merged with the "offended" thread. They belong together.

[Ħ]

I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.

That's not true.  The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM.  You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented.  They've got different levels of credibility.

What exactly makes the christian god existing more credible than the FSM existing?

We can historically prove beyond any measure of doubt that the FSM was invented.  You can't prove to the same degree of certainty that the Christian god was made up.  So the Christian god is more credible.

In other words, if you somehow narrowed the truth down to these two possibilities, and you had to pick one, you would pick the Christian god (I hope).

[eric42434224]

I think the FSM schtick made the point that to a lot of people, there is no difference between the Christian god and the FSM in terms of credibility. Once you're not emotionally invested in the Christian god, it really does sound the same.

That's not true.  The Christian god has more going for him than the FSM.  You can't prove that the Christian god was invented just as well as you can prove that the FSM was invented.  They've got different levels of credibility.

What exactly makes the christian god existing more credible than the FSM existing?

We can historically prove beyond any measure of doubt that the FSM was invented.  You can't prove to the same degree of certainty that the Christian god was made up.  So the Christian god is more credible.

In other words, if you somehow narrowed the truth down to these two possibilities, and you had to pick one, you would pick the Christian god (I hope).

That isnt what I asked.

[jsem]

There is still no more evidence for the christian God than for FSM. And vice versa.

[rumborak]

We can historically prove beyond any measure of doubt that the FSM was invented.  You can't prove to the same degree of certainty that the Christian god was made up.  So the Christian god is more credible.

The FSM wasn't invented. It was revealed to Henderson. And more, we actually know Henderson, so it makes FSM more credible. No one knows who wrote Genesis, and many Christian writings have been shown to be of false authorship. Very dubious.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I'm with rumby.  The FSM was a brilliant satire on why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes.  But for an average atheist to just use the FSM as an attack on religious people out of context is hostile, and stupid.

[jsem]

I'm with rumby.  The FSM was a brilliant satire on why ID shouldn't be taught in science classes.  But for an average atheist to just use the FSM as an attack on religious people out of context is hostile, and stupid.

I don't think we needa have the ID discussion here. I'm pretty sure there's no one here that's in favor if teaching ID in science classes.

[Ħ]

I wouldn't call it "brilliant."  Six-year-olds can come up with that stuff.

[eric42434224]

I wouldn't call it "brilliant."  Six-year-olds can come up with that stuff.

Six year olds can come up with satires on why Intelligent Design shouldnt be taught in science class?

I was unaware 1st graders were so smart. 

[GuineaPig]

I don't know.  When I was in Kindergarten I conceived a brilliant satire of the status of race relations between the overall WASP population in my town and the influx of East Asian immigrants by colouring every person I drew with a neutral cream coloured pencil crayon.

[rumborak]

I wouldn't call it "brilliant."  Six-year-olds can come up with that stuff.

You sound agitated.

rumborak

[Ħ]

No I'm serious.  I would do that all the time.  Someone would say something about God, or ask me what I believe, and I'd say "Oh I believe in Zeus" or "I believe in Din, Nayru, and Farore, and you can't prove me wrong so neener neener neener."  Same thing.

[Sigz]

I think you're totally missing the point of FSM.

[Ħ]

Am I?  The point of the FSM is to mock creationism/ID.  A subpoint is to mock the teaching of creationism/ID in schools.

[rumborak]

So what? I mean, I would think you know that in this day and age, believing in the Christian deity is (rightly so) seeing a lot of scrutiny.

rumborak

[bosk1]

No, I think the point is that scrutiny and mocking are not the same thing.  Scrutiny should be welcome.  Mocking is not, and shows not only a lack of maturity, but also undercuts the credibility of the person making the argument.

[eric42434224]

Am I?  The point of the FSM is to mock creationism/ID.  A subpoint is to mock the teaching of creationism/ID in schools.

Yes you are missing the point.

It is a satirical protest with a very serious purpose.  Mocking is to hold up to scorn or contempt, or to ridicule.  He wasnt commenting directly on ID, but on school cirriculum.  If you are not emotionally vested in ID, you wont see it as mocking.

[El JoNNo]

No, I think the point is that scrutiny and mocking are not the same thing.  Scrutiny should be welcome.  Mocking is not, and shows not only a lack of maturity, but also undercuts the credibility of the person making the argument.

Or it shows just how ridiculous the original premise is. Especially when someone who is offended does a comparison and it finally clicks. It is the same mockery people receive at the hands of those who believe, if not less harsh. The FSM points how ludicrous the christian faith is and the christian faith condemns non-believers, sounds fair to me. 

[William Wallace]

This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect? 

[eric42434224]

No, I think the point is that scrutiny and mocking are not the same thing.  Scrutiny should be welcome.  Mocking is not, and shows not only a lack of maturity, but also undercuts the credibility of the person making the argument.

Or it shows just how ridiculous the original premise is. Especially when someone who is offended does a comparison and it finally clicks. It is the same mockery people receive at the hands of those who believe, if not less harsh. The FSM points how ludicrous the christian faith is and the christian faith condemns non-believers, sounds fair to me. 

From my understanding of the subject, it doesnt show how ridiculous any premise is....not ID...not the christian god.  It does not point out how ludicrous any faith is......it merely points out why ID should not be taught in science class in a satirical way.  Reading anymore into it just shows ones own emotional bias.

[eric42434224]

This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect? 

The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?

[GuineaPig]

This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?  

I think it goes back to what I posted before:

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.

It's easier to think of oneself in any given argument as superior in some sense, to explain the gulf in opinion between them and an opposing party.  It's the same thinking that manifests itself in "skeptics" or "truthers" or people who name political magazines Reason.  

[William Wallace]

This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect? 

The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?

I don't think it's the same. Smarmy douche-baggery isn't built in to religious vocabulary the same way. Everybody can be saved, so when a Christian says they are it's not a matter of self-righteousness. But when a atheist calls himself a freethinker, the point clearly is to convey that believing in God requires a lack of critical thinking.

[William Wallace]

This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?  

I think it goes back to what I posted before:

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.

It's easier to think of oneself in any given argument as superior in some sense, to explain the gulf in opinion between them and an opposing party.  It's the same thinking that manifests itself in "skeptics" or "truthers" or people who name political magazines Reason.  

I'd read it if it was called "pudding pop magazine." But point taken. Thanks.

[GuineaPig]

This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?  

The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?

I don't think it's the same. Smarmy douche-baggery isn't built in to religious vocabulary the same way. Everybody can be saved, so when a Christian says they are it's not a matter of self-righteousness. But when a atheist calls himself a freethinker, the point clearly is to convey that believing in God requires a lack of critical thinking.

I agree that with your assessment on those specific words, but many religious people call themselves "enlightened" or "open-minded" or some other variation.  I think it's something that's not specific to any one group, but common amongst any group of people who are passionate about a subject.

[eric42434224]

This discussion is prompting me to ask: why do atheists and other non-believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "bright," "freethinkers" ect?  

The same reason believers give themselves self-righteous titles like "saved", "chosen", and "blessed" perhaps?

I don't think it's the same. Smarmy douche-baggery isn't built in to religious vocabulary the same way. Everybody can be saved, so when a Christian says they are it's not a matter of self-righteousness. But when a atheist calls himself a freethinker, the point clearly is to convey that believing in God requires a lack of critical thinking.

Smarmy douch-baggery is built into religious and non-religious vocablary equally.

Bright / Enlightened

[GuineaPig]

But when you bring the term free-thinker into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are a free-thinker, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not.  It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an intellectual esteem with it.  No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than an intelligent, rational, thought-out process.

[eric42434224]

But when you bring the term free-thinker into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are a free-thinker, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not.  It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an intellectual esteem with it.  No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than an intelligent, rational, thought-out process.

But when you bring the term Enlightened into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are enlightened, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not.  It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an spiritual esteem with it.  No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than a divinely inspired revelation.


I find it baffling that any rational person seriously thinks that one side describes themselves in any more a concieted way than the other.  You see this type of language all the time from all types of people...not just religious/non-religious.  It is only offensive or annoying if you are emotionally invested in one side.

[GuineaPig]

But when you bring the term free-thinker into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are a free-thinker, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not.  It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an intellectual esteem with it.  No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than an intelligent, rational, thought-out process.

But when you bring the term Enlightened into any sort of debate, it heavily implies that you believe a certain way because you are enlightened, and that those who do not agree with you do so because they are not.  It's a term everyone would like to claim for themselves because it carries an spiritual esteem with it.  No-one wants to think that they arrived at their own belief by any other way than a divinely inspired revelation.

I'm not disagreeing with you.  I'm just saying that for one to have a constructive debate, one can't go around invoking terms like "free-thinker", because the implications will draw an immediate end to any sort of positive discourse.  Of course one would think the label for themselves was earned, and the other person of course would bristle at the implication that they are not.