Friday, 10 November 2006 - 12:40 PM

I think you are on to something. If I make up a deity, it does not logically follow that all deities are made up. This has always annoyed me a little with FSMism, although otherwise I think it is quite clever.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 8:33 AM

I feel I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage...!

*swoons*

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 8:53 AM

While FSM proves nothing, the point is this: there is just as much evidence for the existence of FSM as any other deity.

At the risk of inciting violent rioting among the FSM-believing population, let me make the math clearer:

Reasons for believing in FSM = Reasons for believing in [BibleGod | KoreshGod | GreekGod]

Reasons for believing in [BibleGod | KoreshGod | GreekGod] = 0

therefore ...

Reasons for believing in FSM = 0

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:08 AM

Was he flying or just perched atop a building? I think Bigfoot would kick the FSM's butt.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:13 AM

"Reasons for believing in [BibleGod | KoreshGod | GreekGod] = 0"

There's actually significantly more reason to believe any of those exist than "0", and I say that as an atheist who doesn't believe in any of them. When you start spouting rank dismissal like this in the form of pseudomath, the only applause you get? From people just as insufferably smug, who already happen to agree with you.

It's a stupid meme amongst atheists (my peer group, for the record) whom are no where near as impervious to standard mob-mentality Groupthink in the name of their beliefs as the Christians or other god-believers they love to snort at. In other words, it's pretty much a cute character design incarnated as an open symbol of their own hypocrisy.

There's nothing inherently ridiculous in believing in God: it all comes down to whether you think the begin point of existence is sentient or not.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:24 AM

Wow, all you folks take this stuff way too seriously. I thought it was just clever fun.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:26 AM

That's no flying spaghetti monster, it's a space sta... oh wait, nevermind.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:30 AM

As an agnostic, I agree with you about the questionable "logic" of all atheists. However, I don't think you can push that on the FSM. The FSM was created in order to protest the teaching of intelligent design in SCIENCE classes. You must agree, that is ridiculous. It should, I think, be mentioned in passing. But to give it equal standing with the leading scientific theory....

Its really a diservice to the kids they teach it to. The international community (not speaking of theocracies) does not teach it, does not recognize it (in fact, the international school called International Baccalaurette only has 1 objective even related to nonevolutionary theories out of some 50 or so on evolution).

The wave towards de-secularization of our schools bodes ill, I think, for America. That is what the FSM symbolizes. Not the nonexistence of God.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:47 AM

I think you guys are missing the original point of the FSM. He was "discovered" in order to argue that a school teaching a deity such as Christianity's God must also teach the FSM, and in doing so, block any Gods from being taught.

The point was never to disprove another religion's God, it was to prove that such an entity could not be proven, and should therefore be absent in a public school's education.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:48 AM

Great stuff! :p

And to you all going on about FSM and all that, grow... down (is that the opposite of "grow up?"). It's all in good fun. It doesn't matter what you believe, just laugh a little. God has a sense of humor... ;)

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:52 AM

John:
Sure, granted there once was a book written about this guy who took a nap on the seventh day and what not, but the idea isn't that there is no reason at all for the, it's just that no one God is any better to believe in than any other just because someone believes. In philosophy it's generally acceptable to take an argument and substitute the main noun (in this case, a god) and replace it with something with the same implications but is obviously absurd. It wouldn't really disprove anything, it would just instill doubt, if anything, in the argument (at least from a philosophical standpoint).

I don't see why real religions are more believable than the FSM. What makes them so much more real (or even vice versa)? People can point out a number of reasons like it wasn't written as a satire or there's lore that supports it or any number of other things but anybody else could say that any other religion is just as artificial. I can write a book about anything I want and I could tell the whole world that I'm a god. It wouldn't be the first time that a group of people believed that.

Unfortunately what really irks me is that you seem happy to put down someone else's idea because someone else agrees with him (which you yourself use as a reason to back you?) rather than give any logical explanation of your view. No big issue, just food for thought. Sides, I figure somebody should come to his defense (don't worry, I've argued the other side of the coin quite often as well.)

And for the record, I love the FSM, I think it's funny as hell. What's even more funny is how worked up people get over something like this. I find it entertaining the things that we find to argue about. Personally I say long live the FSM and all the thinking he might make us do! And I also want to mention that I love the Invisible Pink Unicorn (may Her Holy Hooves never be shod) as well.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:52 AM

you all realize that flying spaghetti monster was made up on South Park, and some guys have just carryed on the joke a bit too far lol...

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:53 AM

Yeah, What Mike said =) Just enjoy it!

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 10:02 AM

No... flying speghetti monster was in a quote some time ago from a athiest leader, and is now popuralized by a humor organization:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

South Park just mentioned it.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 10:31 AM

All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

You have to admit, nobody has ever been killed in the name of the flying spaghetti monster - this alone is sufficient to put it WAY ahead of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, pretty much every religion in fact.

Smart people (like me) worship the FSM!
Dumb people (George Bush) worship Jesus!

And now we have video evidence of the FSM. Sure beats the odd burnt taco with Jesus picture on it...

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 10:45 AM

I must remember to wear my parmesan shavings of invisibility next time

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 10:48 AM

I see nobody spotted me talking to FSM.

He gets all the best press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 10:49 AM

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was initially the mascot for the sanctity of science as it exists insulated from religious persecution (as it should be). Now it has evolved, as most icons do, not into a symbol for smug pat-on-the-back Atheism, but rather for open-minded Agnosticism with a sense of humor.

The FSM, in all his starchy glory, unites those who are open to new ideas, take everything with a grain of salt, and are as quick to laugh at themselves as they are to laugh at others. If all the world's people were Pastafarian as well as whatever else they believe, I think it would be a better place ;)

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 11:05 AM

Bobby Henderson for President!

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 11:10 AM

Hmm....it looks more like a flying testicle monster that was torn from its space scrotum along with some tendons

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 11:20 AM

I saw this video once many, many months ago. It's not new. However, I am a big fan of the FSM! It's a terrificly rediculous counterargument for intelligent design. Why teach something as true if you personally made it up?

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 11:31 AM

How do you dare posting this such a blasphemous video?

May the Invisible Pink Unicorn's wrath fall upon you.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 11:42 AM

Apparently this was a Flying Spaghetti Monster with meatballs. Yummy.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 11:49 AM

FSM is way cool....way cooler than a hideous bloodthirsty baby raping piece of god!! Thankyou FSM for not being hideous, blood thirsty and baby raping!!

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 12:00 PM

I'm a Christian and a big fan of the FSM. Bobby Henderson originally created the FSM to protest the teaching of intelligent design in Kansas schools (a right and proper thing to do in my opinion) and I've never taken it so much as a parody of religion as much as it is the tendency of some possibly well-intentioned but severely misguided people to attempt to force religion where it doesn't belong.

Religion and science are like oil and water - they don't mix well.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 1:03 PM

FSM is an abomination. It's an insult to anyone with a logical rational mind. It's basis as an argument is actually very illogical and rather irrational. It tries to subdue the Truth from being spread and tries to subdue His word. Everyone with even half a brain knows that it's the Flying Angel Hair Pasta Monster. Praise FAHPM!!!

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 1:11 PM

1) The debate over the true meaning of the Flying Spaghetti Monster really helpes illustrate a couple of things. First, it shows how rapidly an idea may be repurposed by other people to make it mean most anything they want. Second, it shows that geeks are way too fond of acronyms.

2) As for the 'clever' person who pointed out that there is as much proof for the existence of 'God' as any other diety. Wow. Did you come up with that all on your own? Look pal, if there was proof then there wouldn't be any need for faith or trust as both are based on unknowability and doubt.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 1:11 PM

I find it odd that people rally around the FSM and slam intelligent design (I'm not for it or against it, btw), but do not accuse certain scientific thinking of being grounded in the same logic. For example, string theory... not a shred of physical evidence exists to prove or disprove string theory, yet hundreds of scientists base their careers on it.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 1:33 PM

Sneeje:

I take it you don't know much about string theory. While I agree it can't really be taken as a valid "physical theory", rather it should be looked upon as a mathematical answer to a physical riddle. Particles that weren't physically discovered yet were calculated by the use of eigenvalues, all of the particles were able to be defined in this way, it was a rather lucky occurrence. String theory takes a look at what kind of physical structure could exist below the plank length that would produce such an occurrence. We're not talking about something shoddy like intelligent design that is inferred through "patterns that we can recognize but can't really define"... we're talking about sound mathematical reasoning. it's also far more complex at the present time than most people could even comprehend. I'm not saying to it's going to replace quantum mechanics as our most fundamental physical theory to date, i'm pretty sure most string theorists wouldn't say such a thing... but string theory has a lot of merit... besides string theory has the possibility of predicting some occurrence that our present physical theories don't, this would be a definite nod towards its validity. Intelligent design has no possibility to predict what so ever.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 1:37 PM

the FSM is mostly used as an argument in the debate between teaching evolution/intelligent design in public schools. basically, if they're going to give intelligent design as much attention as evolution is class rooms then why shouldn't they give just as much attention to FSM?

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 1:42 PM

Chris:

1. Quotes from the bible showed your former point from part 1 long before the flying spaghetti monster.

2. There is as much proof for the existence of FSM as there is any other deity... i don't know if you accidently typed god, but considering the quasi-quotes you have around it i doubt it. But, on to your point... the purpose of FSM isn't to persuade people not to believe in god, as you imply (or at the least that's what i'm inferring), it's to show that you can't teach concepts based around god as scientific fact because they're, by logical demonstration, not.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 2:40 PM

I see no proof that it could fly!

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 2:46 PM

FSM FTW!

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 3:22 PM

I am an agnostic (dont know if there's a god, and really don't care) and I think the FSM was funny as hell, the first fifteen times I heard it. Now it bores me. It serves its original function terribly well, which is to argue against the teaching of intelligent design in our schools. However, I have to take issue with people taking what is really a fairly good joke, and turning it into a philosophy, or worse, turning it into an excuse for rather dim-witted insults. One poster here wrote "Dumb people (George Bush) worship Jesus". That's just rediculous. Millions of people worship Jesus, many of which are intelligent, and many (though not all, and sadly perhaps not a majority) of those would not wish their religion to be taught in science classes any more than they'd want science to be taught in their churches. Dismissal of such a large number of people is much 'dumber' than any religious belief.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 3:33 PM

Don't you people believe the real God is going to be slightly offended by comparing him to a flying Spaghetti Monster?

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 3:40 PM

bluebonics:

1) yes. I was trying to illustrate that it doesn't just happen to religious types.

2) Again, I know. That should have been obvious from my statements in part 1.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 3:47 PM

I will come down and smite thee - with tomato sauce.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 3:54 PM

LOL, and I wonder why there have been so many well intentioned wars and atrocities in Gods name. We seem ready to fight about a rather well made point. (I am very religious and believe wholeheartedly in God) But FSM makes a good point and we should stop forcing our views on others. I chose to think God would agree.
I have always wondered, why is theology and science mutually exclusive? Does the all time master of time and space really keep time the way we do? Allowing him to rest at the end of his week as defined by us, or a week of his/hers or theirs to rest on a "seventh day". Could Adam and Eve been hairy and not yet quite walking up right? I don't know and am tired of people telling me they do and it is straight from the mouth of God.
Where do I apply for a t-shirt franchise?

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:11 PM

Jay:

Don't you think the Flying Spaghetti Monster is going to be offended by being compared to God? Well... no. If the FSM can deal with it, God'll be fine.

Also, if God doesn't have a sense of humour, he must be a pretty sucky god. :P

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:11 PM

If you christians/muslims/etc think that FSM is silly, you suddenly understand what atheists think when you come invoking the name of your god.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:19 PM

Religion is forced on people in USA every day. Those people are called "children". Let them pick their own religion when theyre old enough to say "no".

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:30 PM

> Religion is forced on people in USA every day.
> Those people are called "children".
> Let them pick their own religion when theyre old enough to say "no".

That sounds worrying like you're putting forth a value judgement as an absolute; that won't fly without some metaphysics behind it, old bean.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:33 PM

>> There is as much proof for the existence of FSM as there is any other deity

There is? Wonderful, could you point me in the direction of a first-century messianic Jewish sect who, on their crucifixion of their messianic candidate, generated a FSM based theology? Given your self-confidence, I figured you must have some first-century evidence that the scholarly world is dying to see.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:36 PM

>> Religion and science are like oil and water - they don't mix well

A little naive; please don't expect the rest of us who want a joined up epistemology to follow you into that particular post-Kantian quagmire.

Has it not occurred that science itself is based upon a set of presuppositions itself? Go read David Hume as your starter for 10.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:36 PM

LOL Rose

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:38 PM

There's nothing inherently ridiculous in believing in God

Yeah there is.. it's just as rediculous as believing in santa claus or the boogie man. Why is it only in matters of religion are people afraid to call a spade a spade. If you believing in fairy tales of any kind, it's rediculous. No need to pussyfoot around the issue. Sorry if it offends theists but they're a bunch of wackos anyways :D

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 4:38 PM

John Lennon was the True Prophet of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This I know. (Ref: Magical Mystery Tour, Pasta Restaurant Dream Scene.)

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:09 PM

"That sounds worrying like you're putting forth a value judgement as an absolute;"

Because you said so? Or because only god can judge? Being given a choice is pretty democratic, don't you agree? Personally, I'm all for democracy.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:19 PM

No, because you were trying to turn your value judgment into something to impose on everybody elses. That either makes you a theist or a fascist ;-)

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:24 PM

"Sorry if it offends theists but they're a bunch of wackos anyways"

... is this an example of the "rationality" and "logical argumentation" that atheists seem to speak so highly of? Or is it the Duff talking? ;-)

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:26 PM

Roger "Has it not occurred that science itself is based upon a set of presuppositions itself?"

You talk as if you realized this yourself instead of reading about it. You must be really smart or something.

Assume we don't all have a dictionary in front of us, like some, and your points will go across much easier.

Religion and science do not mix a lot besides that some people seem to accept both as a part of their world-view.

Pretty smart of the authors and editors of the bible to put in a fail-safe device such as "oh no, evidence for believing this book is not required, because this book says so!" What intelligent person wouldn't get convinced by THAT?

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:28 PM

"You must be really smart or something"

Thanks, yes, a PhD in philosophy. But don't worry, really dumb people can sound off without knowing zippity doo what they're talking about ... it's fun for my students to have a laugh at.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:28 PM

">> There is as much proof for the existence of FSM as there is any other deity

There is? Wonderful, could you point me in the direction of a first-century messianic Jewish sect who, on their crucifixion of their messianic candidate, generated a FSM based theology?"

Are you saying that because something is created by a jewish sect, it holds more proof? I'm afraid I am not following.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:31 PM

I am simply pointing out that some ideas have more legs than others :-)

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:33 PM

"No, because you were trying to turn your value judgment into something to impose on everybody elses. That either makes you a theist or a fascist ;-)"

That's the fate of all those that have an opinion, we become theists and fascists. Good work, Watson.

But instead of talking about me, let's talk about "giving the kids a choice" part I was so callously trying to impose on you, (instead of your children). Do we disagree on that part?

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:35 PM

"I am simply pointing out that some ideas have more legs than others :-)"

Because they're older? Because more people believe them? You are not making a strong case so far.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:36 PM

Yes, a choice of worldviews ... rather than an uncritical atheism imposed by epistemic midgets :-)

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:39 PM

Try exploring "explanatory scope" as a topic.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 5:49 PM

Wow, you are a troll, aren't you? Do your imaginary students know this?

Discussing with you seems pretty worthless. I do not talk to people in the comments to get recommended topics of philosophy, especially not if it leads to weak argumentation like yours.

But if you truly are a teacher of that unproductive subject, you are a living proof that there actually are bad teachers out there.

You have wasted my time, Roger. Thanks a lot :-(

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 6:12 PM

religion isn't about god, it's about control freaks hiding behind god and trying to establish power over other humans and create wealth for themselves

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 6:17 PM

To: "Invisible Pink Unicorn"

That's because your existance is a paradox. You cannot be pink AND invisible, therefore you do not exist.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 6:31 PM

>> "religion isn't about god, it's about control freaks hiding behind god and trying to establish power over other humans ..."

So are many atheistic worldviews, such a communism :-)

>> "... and create wealth for themselves"

And why do you think Richard Dawkins writes books? (As Richard said to me: "it's got to the stage where I could put my name on the London Telephone Directory and it would sell.")

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:02 PM

John Brownlee, I couldn't agree more with your 9:13 comment. I watched a hellfire and brimstone Evangelical preacher get shouted down by a bunch of FSM types on campus not long ago. What they didn't realize is that by doing so, they set themselves on a lower level than him - he at least addressed his critics in the audience.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:04 PM

This is the most entertaining shit I've read all week. Seriously.

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 9:51 PM

Angle: Christian
Gender: Male
Location: U.S.

You can send a kid to school but you can't make him learn. Finally, the internet is here. Ditch the entire public school system and let people learn without limits. They can decide what to be taught themselves. Don't shelter people from points of view. Explore them. Analyze them. Understand them. And analyze your own beliefs. Don't assume you're the best or right or whatever. Know exactly what you believe and exactly why. If you can't explain it to someone willing to listen, you have a problem. I don't care who you are. Fellow Christians as well. Theoretically, such an approach would solve many a problem. I'm not going to get into the individual arguments here, like, say, chromosome numbers and origin of time, but we have answers too, if you would seriously hear them. And there is no harm in hearing them, I hope we can agree on that. www.christianforums.com

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 10:02 PM

frizzantik:

there is nothing rediculous in believeing in god, simply for the fact that a god gives people purpose. of the athiests and agnostics i know, many of them go out of their way to prove they can be just as good without the commandments of some divinity. the idea of a god means that I'm not here by sole luck of the draw, to do nothing more than have have kids and die. If that's not reason enough for a god, for people to better themselves simply because some divine figure said to do it, then nothing is. we all know very few people have the ability to think and choose for themselves. belief in god does not make me a "wacko", it just confirms that i am afraid of uselessness.

god also fills the need of continuation. if we read the greek epics, the illiad and oddessy, we know that in both, the main character had no care for any of the dieties of the time, they simply wanted fame so that their name may live on. 100 years after you die, will it matter to you if people know who you are? it shouldn't, but people are afraid of being forgotten. i'm rambling now, and i've probably lost my train of thought, just chew on that

Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 11:15 PM

Everyone here is arguing a small part of a bigger issue. Not every atheist has an ignorant and immature attitude towards christians and not every christian believes in Creationism and hates science.

It seems atheists and agnostics rarely hear info from a reliable religious source. Most people believe the big churches and the Pope would have the most accurate answers. They might have some of the oldest answers, some of which the church has been using for centuries, but a lot of people are finally getting sick of the irrational and dumb things "believers" say so they have to think things over themselves. It's not even worth listening to the religious leaders. The fact is, they're the problem. Jesus didn't spend all his time with people who weren't religious. He knew the people that were screwing everything up were the religious ones. The non-religoius don't know or don't have a preference either way so they're not going around bending words or taking things out of context.

The one thing that is pretty stupid is how people want proof that God exists. The whole point of God was to have faith in him and that's supposed to be the reason we have free will and all that jazz. If he interrupted our life and/or world and gave us proof I don't think anyone would 'genuinely' say "I don't believe in God!" anymore. He becomes a certainty then.

1. Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools, but evolution shouldn't be taught as an absolute. (ie. We evolved from birds, which evolved from frog, which came from the first bacteria.) If your going to teach it that way like you saw it happen first-hand, then you should explain to me how any sort of life existed in the first place to form something.

2. Churches and religious leaders should be taken out of power or given less media coverage. The religious coverage that should be in the media is logical debates with open-minded people of different religions who will listen to all sides of the religious spectrum.

3. The Bible should be looked at the same as any historical book without things being 'creatively interpretted' just to have something to preach to your followers. People should also stop trying to debunk a whole book based on things that they find illogical or impossible in todays world. Things haven't always been the same.

Blah, whatever motivation I had for typing this is gone now.... The whole point is to just think about things more and stop calling everyone out on something you think you are certain about. It works both ways.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 12:27 AM

Previously- "There's nothing inherently ridiculous in believing in God: it all comes down to whether you think the begin point of existence is sentient or not."

No. It's ridiculous. An assertion that the universe was created by an undetectable but infinitely powerful and omniscient creature whose very existence violates scores of physical laws with no explanation offered of where this creature came from *is* ridiculous.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 2:07 AM

I must agree with Carter Sanders on this subject. the whole idea of a magical creature appearing out of nowhere to create a planet with a limited amount people to populate the world is rediculous, i guess that's why religious people say we are all related.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 2:36 AM

Wow... no-one seems to be talking about the video any more. Lots of ridiculous arguments (note the spelling of ridiculous, incidentally...) on both sides, though, predominantly with a lot of flaming (which is of course why i'm flaming everyone!)
Also, plezse note that I'm not saying which side I (in general) fall ontop, because there is no point. I have no urge to inflict my view on anyone else, particularly since no-one is listening anyway.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 5:17 AM

My question to you phil, what country do you come from?

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 5:33 AM

What kind of wine do you recommend with spaghettii?--damn big meatballs too.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 5:50 AM

I nominate 'rediculous' is accepted as a neologism with immediate effect:
'rediculous' - used to describe a person's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) that you disagree with.
Also, accusations of fascism about 3/4 of the way down the comments. Marvelous. More please!

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 5:52 AM

See, I remember Discordianism, so I predict that the ultimate irony is going to be in 15 years when, given the resilience of the religious impluse in the human mind, many of the people who use the FSM as purely a giddy way of scoffing at traditional religionists will find, to their surprise, that they have become *sincere* Pastafarians.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 6:53 AM

loosen up guys. can't we just have some fun :)

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 7:40 AM

quoting
Sunday, 12 November 2006 - 10:02 PM
Name: rooly

a god gives people purpose... the idea of a god means that I'm not here by sole luck of the draw, to do nothing more than have have kids and die. If that's not reason enough for a god, for people to better themselves simply because some divine figure said to do it, then nothing is. we all know very few people have the ability to think and choose for themselves...it just confirms that i am afraid of uselessness.

++++

Have you ever picked up your Bible? How about when you get to Ecclesiastes, and read about how everything is vanity. Not a lot there about a purpose for life, huh?

Jesus doesn't talk about "bettering" yourself, he says go be poor, throw away everything, and hang out with the most destitute people you can find. Jesus was the moocher who would crash on your couch, drink your beer and eat your Cheetos, then when you told him to leave, he would give you some hard luck story about how he was an out of work carpenter but now he was the son of God.

Then you get to Paul, who thinks you should be a eunuch, but if you can't refuse to have sex, marriage is something you can settle for. And those homosexuals should all be put to death.

Once you get past the miracles that can't happen there's all the crazy crap that God orders people to do: have sex with their father, murder their son, don't look behind you or I'll turn you into a pillar of salt, do whatever your dad tells you to do even if its wrong, if somebody punches you in your face thank them and have them do it again, don't look at your neighbor's success and think it's a good thing you should try for. Let us all know when you finish reading the book upon which your "betterment" is based.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 8:17 AM

The book starts off with 2 nudists and a talking snake. Then an elderly man builds a giant boat and puts 2 of every animal in it, oh yeah and there's a bush that's on fire and talks to people.
nuff said

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 8:21 AM

wow i cant believe how charged you guys are about this!
FSM obviously comes from the Intel Design Argument. The truth is that there are a lot of Christians who do not want "Intelligent Design" taught in school. (Its sad that we are not the ones with the money to hire a lobyist) The reason that I hear most commonly, and the reason that I do not want Public High Schools teaching this is the same reason that I do not want state sponsored prayer in public schools. I do NOT want a school to be resposible for the religious socialization of my child. Plain and Simple. The worst reason that I often hear is when people argue for the "separation of Church and State". This is an idea that is so far removed from its original intent, and ironicly has its roots in Southern Baptist history.
anyways im done

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 8:36 AM

BAD camera matching guys. next time, call a professional.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 9:22 AM

What I want to know is where could I get the cool FSM symbol for the back of my car. There is a bumper war between the Darwins and the Christains in Oregon.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 9:47 AM

Amity here you go

http://www.merch-bot.com/product_info.php?products_id=388

if the URL does not work--clique in my name above.

Kraken

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 10:01 AM

"a PhD in philosophy"

Roger, this and the name-dropping means one thing: you like to tell other people how smart you are.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 10:10 AM

The amusing thing is that after an atheist realizes there is no God, the only conclusion at which he can arrive is that nothing matters. That includes efforts to inform (or ironically indoctrinate) religious folks.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 10:37 AM

You guys are all blasphemous. Damn you non believers! When the last days come, you will see the light... Repent now and He will welcome you into his noodly appendages.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 11:07 AM

For I have seen the glory...RAmen.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 11:11 AM

"The amusing thing is that after an atheist realizes there is no God, the only conclusion at which he can arrive is that nothing matters."
Actually, after an atheist realizes there is no God, suddenly everything matters.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 11:22 AM

Marco Rosini:

Thank you, Marco. Between that and "rediculous" I haven't been able to concentrate on the discussion.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 11:41 AM

" 'a PhD in philosophy'

Roger, this and the name-dropping means one thing: you like to tell other people how smart you are."

And from his posts I doubt he is often persuasive.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 11:49 AM

Roger:

There is? Wonderful, could you point me in the direction of a first-century messianic Jewish sect who, on their crucifixion of their messianic candidate, generated a FSM based theology? Given your self-confidence, I figured you must have some first-century evidence that the scholarly world is dying to see.

I fail to see where a man dieing for someone else's beliefs is any kind of real proof for an idea. We had wars where people died for their beliefs and all that proved was that they believed it was worth dieing for. People have died for people who "loved" them but didn't really. We don't even know if Jesus died because he believed he was the son of God. We only know of two people for sure that believed it, the man who wanted him dead and the man who "betrayed" Jesus (if he really was God's son).

Whether Jesus was the son of God or not, I don't know. It's just that I don't see where the conclusion follows from the reasoning. For proof all I see is events based on hearsay

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 11:55 AM

laugh while you can...you'll burn in boiling fra diavlo sauce for eternity. or not.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 1:08 PM

The FSM is funny - but if people think it makes a substantive case about anything (either science or religion), then they are only showing their ignorance of the real issues.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 1:24 PM

How can anything matter when there is no transcendent force giving value to anything?

And the FSM isn't supposed to prove anything. Paradoxically, it proves that not being able to disprove something (God) doesn't prove anything.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 2:08 PM

This is incredibly amusing. You people are quite literally arguing about who has the best imaginary friend in the sky.

You are arguing over the legitimacy of the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER as a better religious belief than Christianity or a "real" religion- that's like arguing that Stephen Colbert is a more morally sound and highly serious paragon of traditional conservative values than Bill O'Reilly is.

I have a novel idea: leave it alone. What does it *really* matter what some anonymous person on the Internet believes? You will NEVER meet them and it will NEVER matter outside of that person's life. Do any of you care about what I believe or who I may or may not pray to? Nope, so why should you care about anyone else?

Opinions are like anuses- everyone has one, no one really wants to see anyone else's, and things get messy when they're shoved in other people's faces.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 2:13 PM

Cahmooo:
"The amusing thing is that after an atheist realizes there is no God, the only conclusion at which he can arrive is that nothing matters."

that has to be one of the most absurd statements i've ever read...

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 2:20 PM

Cahmooo:
"How can anything matter when there is no transcendent force giving value to anything?"

mark that one down as well... did you ever stop to think that we assign our own values to things? it's why you've (presumably) assigned value to your religion, just as i've assigned value to my pursuits in knowledge and playing video games... it's the same for everything, nothing has any actual inherent value other than what WE give to it, it's not that "atheists come to conclude nothing matters", it's just that we assign value to some things that differ from what you do and you assign value to some things that differ from what we do. for a lot of atheists that doesn't mean a belief in god is bad... i'm down for anyone believing in anything they want frankly, as long as nobody tries to impose their beliefs on myself...

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 2:21 PM

How can anything NOT matter when there is personal and direct experience of it?

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 3:07 PM

It used to be people feared an eternity in hell for killing someone, now they only have to fear 10 to 15 in prison. Reason to believe in God = 0?? Tell that to the parents of the 16 year old girl who got her head blown off for $37.50 out of the register when they watch their daughters murderer fear nothing but his parole officer. But then again, I guess you can keep blaming it on society.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 3:39 PM

Bluebonics, I didn't mean that all atheists don't value things. It's just they (should) know that that doesn't mean anything except to themselves, which seems to coincide with the point you make. Actually, it seems you've mistaken my comments as espousing religion and decrying the lack of one. From there, you imply that the meaningless void left in God's absence strikes me as a bad thing. My point that is that it is neither good nor bad, it just "is." We can apply values to things (which I happen to do), but that doesn't mean they have value, i.e., they're not valuable, they just "are."

Oh, and it's deliciously ironic that you chose to describe my comments as "absurd." After all, the concept of the Absurd is the idea for which my hero, Albert Camus, is best known.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 3:43 PM

Yo, life is here and now why the heck not enjoy it honestly, I really just believe there has to be somthing to believe in, something that started it, but worry about that when your dead, live your life here and now and enjoy it.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 3:44 PM

I'm confused. Atheists are saying the spaghetti monster was "created" to poke fun at intelligent design? Shouldn't atheists instead say that the spaghetti monster "evolved" to poke fun at intelligent design? I mean, with all the spaghetti and meatballs on this planet, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 7:47 PM

Name: Anon

"The amusing thing is that after an atheist realizes there is no God, the only conclusion at which he can arrive is that nothing matters."
Actually, after an atheist realizes there is no God, suddenly everything matters.
-
I have to agree with Anon there. I think I'm better for not believing in a divine power than I would be if I did. That's not because I think that religion messes people up but because at the end of the day the only person I truly have to answer to is myself. Just knowing myself (and I think others are similar), I think that if I actually believed in a deity then I would lose a certain feeling of accountability. I believe I only have one chance to get it right, that there's no chance for me to ask for forgiveness or anything like that. And I also have my own ideas. I don't have any real doctrine to answer to except my own, which in parts is kind borrowed from Christianity anyway.

once again, I will point out that I'm not disagreeing or putting anyone down. I just think that that's the way I would have turned out.

This is why I like the FSM =) lots of thinking

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 7:48 PM

As for Curious George, I'll try to reconcile the idea of created and evolved by putting it in a different way. The FSM 'came about' to poke fun at intelligent design =).

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 8:37 PM

BRAN: I have to agree with Anon there. I think I'm better for not believing in a divine power than I would be if I did.
---------
This is how indoctrinated the false, arbitrary binary opposition of "better" and "worse" is in the human mind. Without God, there are no definitions of "better" or "worse." This is the sort of relativism of which you and Anon are partly in realization, although you still hold the idea that you can, or should, "get it right."

Monday, 13 November 2006 - 8:53 PM

Stupid Graphics(hollywood style) is this FSM. We have seen better kingkong movies and jurassic parks. :-)

Tuesday, 14 November 2006 - 5:50 AM

This is how indoctrinated the false, arbitrary binary opposition of "better" and "worse" is in the human mind.
----
Yes. We humans have a strange predilection for preferring some things to other things. That's a behavior inherited from our earliest single-celled ancestors, which lacked the intellect to attach value to an idea but still managed not to equate, say, food and swimming into a pool of Clorox. To this day, we tend to prefer things to other things in a scheme that approximates some form of utilitarianism.

-------
Without God, there are no definitions of "better" or "worse."
-------

Main Entry: 1bet·ter
Pronunciation: 'be-t&r;
Function: adjective, comparative of GOOD
Etymology: Middle English bettre, from Old English betera; akin to Old English bOt remedy, Sanskrit bhadra fortunate
1 : greater than half
2 : improved in health or mental attitude
3 : more attractive, favorable, or commendable
4 : more advantageous or effective
5 : improved in accuracy or performance

Main Entry: 1bad
Pronunciation: 'bad
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): worse /'w&rs;/; worst /'w&rst;/
Etymology: Middle English
1 a : failing to reach an acceptable standard : POOR b : UNFAVORABLE c : not fresh : SPOILED d : not sound : DILAPIDATED
2 a : morally objectionable : EVIL b : MISCHIEVOUS, DISOBEDIENT
3 : inadequate or unsuited to a purpose
4 : DISAGREEABLE, UNPLEASANT
5 a : INJURIOUS, HARMFUL b : SERIOUS, SEVERE
6 : INCORRECT, FAULTY
7 a : suffering pain or distress b : UNHEALTHY, DISEASED
8 : SORROWFUL, SORRY
9 a : INVALID, VOID b : not able to be collected
10 bad·der bad·dest slang a : GOOD, GREAT b : TOUGH, MEAN
- bad·ness noun

There -- a couple good definitions, all without God. I urge you to explain how any of these are not derived from a utilitarian principle.

------

This is the sort of relativism of which you and Anon are partly in realization, although you still hold the idea that you can, or should, "get it right."
-------

It's relativism? No shit, huh? You have just managed to happen upon one of the greatest realizations of nearly every six-year-old ever to live: "Holy cow, there are people who don't the believe the same things that I believe!" And yet, to say that there *are* some things that are always good, and some that are always bad? *head explodes*

Tuesday, 14 November 2006 - 6:57 AM

If there's a God who created kangaroos, penguins, Venus fly-traps, and GW Bush, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would probably crack him up--he's got to have a weird sense of humor.

Tuesday, 14 November 2006 - 8:06 AM

People are totally missing the point - FSM is a joke. It's to show that no religion can take precedence, no theory over another. By using the same logic, you can create any kind of 'God' you want. The only difference is the history of the religion - and for those of you that tout the bible as proof, Hinduism has been around much longer, so if the older religion takes priority, you need to convert and quit acting like the bible was around first.

Tuesday, 14 November 2006 - 8:21 AM

A predilection doesn't give value to something that doesn't have value with which to begin. And your definitions of "better" or "worse" still contain references to morality and such. And even utilitarianism still presupposes that it's good for a human being to stay alive. I think the state of the world today begs to differ on that point.

Tuesday, 14 November 2006 - 9:15 AM

Moahh....

I'm going to start a jihad on you non-believers of the FSM. Infidels...you shall believe in the mighty words of the FSM or you shall die

Tuesday, 14 November 2006 - 12:14 PM

I dont know what's funnier, references to the almighty FSM or the conservative reactions that are sure to ensue.

Tuesday, 14 November 2006 - 9:41 PM

You know, I think the FSM will actually begin to manifest itself if enough people begin to believe in it. Anyone read Neil Gaiman or Grant Morrisson?

Wednesday, 15 November 2006 - 2:39 AM

"You know, I think the FSM will actually begin to manifest itself if enough people begin to believe in it. Anyone read Neil Gaiman or Grant Morrisson?"

Or Prachett...or any number of people, in fact.

The belief-creates reality is quite a popular idea.

In fact, scarly enough, its also self-consistant, logical, and probably the only way you can put religious beliefs on any scientific footing :p
(as well as certain quantom stuff that they deseperately dont want to happen at bigger scales...)

===
As for the FSM, it is, indeed, just a mind-expirement to show that you cant "proove" an enity exists by taking cheap shots at other theorys.

At the moment, Creationists say:
"Because evolution has yet to explain THIS, God must have done it!".

The FSM was trying to show the crazyness of using God as a default explanation for anything that we dont know.
==========

""The amusing thing is that after an atheist realizes there is no God, the only conclusion at which he can arrive is that nothing matters.""

Your assuming lack of God means lack of an afterlife? Not true.
Many people belief in reincarnation without a God.

Personaly I dont. But that still dosnt mean nothing maters.
I believe that may actions are important for future generations. I belief neither in action, or inaction, i should allow harm to come to anyone.

Im not doing it because Im going to "be judged", Im doing it BECAUSE I WANT TO BE A GOOD PERSON.

The idea that people need a God in order to be Good, is not just wrong, its scary as hell.
Its like Father Christmass for grown ups.
"Behave yourself all your life, or your not getting any presents at the end!"

Personaly belief in God can give people strength, but organised religoen seems to indoctrinate people to belief the most insane things. Especialy about unbeliefers.

Wednesday, 15 November 2006 - 1:54 PM

Um, Hate to be a grammar nazi, but those whom's above should all be who. If you're gonna get all pretentious and pull in the accusative pronoun, at least use it right. Otherwise, feel free to just use who all the time (nobody will notice).
-Gramitler

Wednesday, 15 November 2006 - 6:12 PM

I just think that if you live a good life and are nice to people, you shouldn't have to go give up all your possessions and throw your money away and live with prostitutes and hobos to live an eternal life in heaven. Those rules are just messed up. Money can make people corrupt (as it often does), but there are many people who help other people with their huge sums of cash (like Bill Gates).

Thursday, 16 November 2006 - 1:04 AM

Why would the FSM need to be on top of a roof, can't he fly?

Friday, 17 November 2006 - 1:55 PM

Quiet Bryan! You blasphemeur!! Have faith my good man and for the love of FSM, stop leading people astray with your casual observations. Its people like you that are keeping His Noodleness out of school books, you make me sick!

Monday, 20 November 2006 - 2:31 PM

I think it's funny that anyone who referenced the Bible or stories from it took it all literally as we would today.

If you can be rich and live among scholars but at the same time understand all the poor and prostitutes, then I guess your the exception. Most people have to at some point be in the same position in their life or be around a lot of those people to understand. That's all things like that are saying. Bill Gates understands how bad off the people are and wants to help but does he really FEEL for them because he has a relationship with them and hears from them how hard it is?

The whole point for arguing on the internet for most people is to get people to open their minds a little and maybe understand things in a different way. It doesn't help when there are like half the people who haven't discussed or researched things much and come in with false assumptions and 'facts' that end up influencing people to believe what they're saying. Then it creates more mis-informed people.

Mis-informed people are what grow religions and church rituals though so I guess your on to something if your intent is to try and get FSM up and running. I mean seriously, look at priest and popes that are just normal people in robes....yet they are treated as if they are better than other people and have more 'religious' authority. Is that even what ANY god would want? I know if I was a god I would be pissed that my people were starting to worship their own kind instead...

Monday, 27 November 2006 - 5:01 AM

Well, if you dress up in full pirate regalia, as the good FSM would want, you are in fact better than everyone else.

Tuesday, 19 December 2006 - 3:46 PM

Ok, way back to a long ways ago...

ryan:

No, your case is not proper, (I'm an atheist, going on agnostic) FSM DOES NOT deserve as much publicity in schools as intelligent design and evolution. That is because FSM was made up, lets see, only like, 2 years ago? I'm not saying intelligent or evolution should be taught, I'm saying FSM was just made up for a purpose of showing how stupid it is to place either theorys in schools.