ATTN: People Who Believe in Creation Myths

[natty dread]

so you can't prove god does not exist, yet you say there's lots of evidence, lol.

now who is inconsistent.

WHY DO YOU REJECT THE FSM. HE EXTENDS HIS NOODLY APPENDAGE YET YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT

FSM Jehovah is something clearly made up and he was 'created' in 2005 840 BC. he has just as much power as any other idol.

FTFY

-TG

except jehovah has been around before humans even existed (way before 840 B.C.) and unlike other idols, he has power. he's the only god not created by human hands and minds.

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

[BigBallinStalin]

(From the above link)

assertion that nobody has the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view

Example: I know the idea that ball lightning is caused by ghosts makes no sense to you, but that's only because you're human. Humans cannot understand supernatural phenomena.

How many times have you heard that "god is beyond your comprehension"?

[zimmah]

except the flying spaghetti monster has been around before humans even existed (way before 840 B.C.) and unlike other idols, he has power. he's the only god not created by human hands and minds.

Fixed.

there's proof that the FSM was made up, how can you even compare him with the true god who created everything?

[pmchugh]

except the flying spaghetti monster has been around before humans even existed (way before 840 B.C.) and unlike other idols, he has power. he's the only god not created by human hands and minds.

Fixed.

there's proof that the FSM was made up, how can you even compare him with the true god who created everything?

The proof that FSM was made up was planted there by the FSM to test your faith.

[natty dread]

When others make an argument like this, it's special pleading, but not in my case.

[zimmah]

When others make an argument like this, it's special pleading, but not in my case.

look, if the FSM dictates a 1000+ page book, including with accurate and specific prophecies and it's still believable after 3500 years of being printed, then yes, you can put the FSM in the same league as jehovah. until then, it's no contest really.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yahweh did not dictate a book. People wrote a book, and other people said God made them do it.

What prophecies?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

When others make an argument like this, it's special pleading, but not in my case.

look, if the FSM dictates a 1000+ page book, including with accurate and specific prophecies and it's still believable after 3500 years of being printed, then yes, you can put the FSM in the same league as jehovah. until then, it's no contest really.

Ahem. Pirates are the devout followers of His Noodly Holiness. Since we have lost Faith in His Noodliness and strayed from the righteous path of piratehood, global warming has increased in the past 200 years. It's interesting that an increase in pirates in the last handful of years has meant a reduction in avg. global temp.

Proof.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

-TG

[pmchugh]

When others make an argument like this, it's special pleading, but not in my case.

look, if the FSM dictates a 1000+ page book, including with accurate and specific prophecies and it's still believable after 3500 years of being printed, then yes, you can put the FSM in the same league as jehovah. until then, it's no contest really.

Ahem. Pirates are the devout followers of His Noodly Holiness. Since we have lost Faith in His Noodliness and strayed from the righteous path of piratehood, global warming has increased in the past 200 years. It's interesting that an increase in pirates in the last handful of years has meant a reduction in avg. global temp.

Proof.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.

-TG

I'd just like to add to this point. Many people dress up as pirates for Halloween on the 31st October, and funnily enough the months following October are much cooler than the ones which precede it. Coincidence? I think not.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is it wrong to feel violated after being touched by His Noodly Appendage?

[PLAYER57832]

LOL..
No, but any time someone explains that belief and facts are two different things.. you seem to stomp off in a fit and claim "victory".

When the other side is only left with "you just have to believe because of faith" after 20 pages, then it's clearly a victory.

Good, then you agree that claiming Atheism is superior is stupid, because that is exactly the point.. when there is no firm proof, it IS, by definition faith. That holds true whether you believe there is a God or you believe there is no God. Neither position can be proven.

Acknowledging truth is ALWAYS the higher position. Pretending that you are "correct" because you dislike and cannot yourself see the reasoning behind something you cannot disprove is ignorance, not illumination.

If you can't rationalize any belief beyond that after 20 pages then you need to rethink your where your ideas are coming from.

So why do you keep insisting you have proof when there is none? and that this lack of proof somehow constitutes higher thinking than simple acknowledgement that some things are, still, beyond the ability to prove.

A fundamental premise of GOOD science is not claiming to know what you do not actually know. So, those claiming atheism to be fact or even just "more logical" are no better really than those who claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old just becuase that is what they believe.

The only truly intelligent position is to say that there is neither proof that God exists nor proof God does not.. therefore it is fully logical and scientific to take either position, as long as one does not use that belief as an excuse to ignore other facts.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey PLAYER, how would you define "God"?

[natty dread]

The only truly intelligent position is to say that there is neither proof that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor proof Flying Spaghetti Monster does not.. therefore it is fully logical and scientific to take either position, as long as one does not use that belief as an excuse to ignore other facts.

[PLAYER57832]

The only truly intelligent position is to say that there is neither proof that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor proof Flying Spaghetti Monster does not.. therefore it is fully logical and scientific to take either position, as long as one does not use that belief as an excuse to ignore other facts.

Except there is pretty firm proof that the flying spagghettie monstor was invented recently. Ironically, to help explain the difference between science and faith.. something that apparently is missing from many curricula today.

[pmchugh]

The only truly intelligent position is to say that there is neither proof that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor proof Flying Spaghetti Monster does not.. therefore it is fully logical and scientific to take either position, as long as one does not use that belief as an excuse to ignore other facts.

Except there is pretty firm proof that the flying spagghettie monstor was invented recently. Ironically, to help explain the difference between science and faith.. something that apparently is missing from many curricula today.

That's not what he said, he said there was no proof he doesn't exist.

[PLAYER57832]

The only truly intelligent position is to say that there is neither proof that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor proof Flying Spaghetti Monster does not.. therefore it is fully logical and scientific to take either position, as long as one does not use that belief as an excuse to ignore other facts.

Except there is pretty firm proof that the flying spagghettie monstor was invented recently. Ironically, to help explain the difference between science and faith.. something that apparently is missing from many curricula today.

That's not what he said, he said there was no proof he doesn't exist.

Proof that he was invented in modern times is pretty serious evidence that he does not exist.

And no, there is no similar proof when it comes to the belief in God.

[natty dread]

The only truly intelligent position is to say that there is neither proof that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor proof Flying Spaghetti Monster does not.. therefore it is fully logical and scientific to take either position, as long as one does not use that belief as an excuse to ignore other facts.

Except there is pretty firm proof that the flying spagghettie monstor was invented recently. Ironically, to help explain the difference between science and faith.. something that apparently is missing from many curricula today.

That's not what he said, he said there was no proof he doesn't exist.

Proof that he was invented in modern times is pretty serious evidence that he does not exist.

And no, there is no similar proof when it comes to the belief in God.

Special pleading.

[Juan_Bottom]

Yup.

[chang50]

The only truly intelligent position is to say that there is neither proof that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists nor proof Flying Spaghetti Monster does not.. therefore it is fully logical and scientific to take either position, as long as one does not use that belief as an excuse to ignore other facts.

Except there is pretty firm proof that the flying spagghettie monstor was invented recently. Ironically, to help explain the difference between science and faith.. something that apparently is missing from many curricula today.

That's not what he said, he said there was no proof he doesn't exist.

Proof that he was invented in modern times is pretty serious evidence that he does not exist.

And no, there is no similar proof when it comes to the belief in God.

Special pleading.

+1,Thats the one thing that really ticks me off about religion,the effing special pleading,there is precisely the same lack of evidence for every single one,be it Christianity,or FSMism,or the one I just invented 5 minutes ago.If we go by the age of a belief as an indicator of its veracity then the monotheistic ones are well down the pecking order.

[PLAYER57832]

+1,Thats the one thing that really ticks me off about religion,the effing special pleading,there is precisely the same lack of evidence for every single one,be it Christianity,or FSMism,or the one I just invented 5 minutes ago.If we go by the age of a belief as an indicator of its veracity then the monotheistic ones are well down the pecking order.

You start with a perfectly legitimate argument, the very one I have made, specifically that one cannot claim that one faith is proven superior to another. NOte that I NEVER say that atheism is proven false or that people who are atheists are idiots for being atheists. (I DO occasionally call certain lines of reasoning..and specifically the claim that their ideas are superior "just becuase" to be idiotic).

HOWEVER, to stretch that into a claim that any idea at all is therefore equal is also idiotic. Christianity and Atheism each have long lines of thinking and various types of evidence people consider to be support. To claim that an idea generated 5 minutes ago.. or a couple of decades ago is equal to either is just wrong.

And the problem is that while so many of you atheists (you described yourself as such above) want to lay that blame on anyone with religion, you refuse to accept any culpability for the harm that your unreasoning disdain causes. And yes, this level of disdain and complete misunderstanding is just as unreasoning as those who declare anyone who cannot see Christ is evil.

We are in a time when the very notion of facts and reason are being challenged, when a large part of a generation has never truly been taught that there is any difference between fact and belief. That thinking is harmful to EVERYONE, but ironically, particularly atheists..and yet, you want to crow about feeding into that very garbage.

Learn the difference between truth, fact and belief! When you do, you learn that you gain nothing by dismissing ideas you cannot disprove. Arrogance is the way to extremism. Nazis, the Inquisition, Moaism .. all were born of very different beliefs, but all came to fruition because of arrogance that allowed them to ignore dissent.

[pmchugh]

Player Christianity is completely unfalsifiable but this does not make it viable, likely or reasonable. You are quite right in that we cannot assume a level playing field between all unfalsfiable beliefs, it just so happens that your claim is not at all clever.

[natty dread]

HOWEVER, to stretch that into a claim that any idea at all is therefore equal is also idiotic. Christianity and Atheism each have long lines of thinking and various types of evidence people consider to be support. To claim that an idea generated 5 minutes ago.. or a couple of decades ago is equal to either is just wrong.

Appeal to antiquity.

[BigBallinStalin]

When someone makes a poor comparison between your argument and Nazism, then you've won that argument.

[PLAYER57832]

Player Christianity is completely unfalsifiable but this does not make it viable, likely or reasonable. You are quite right in that we cannot assume a level playing field between all unfalsfiable beliefs, it just so happens that your claim is not at all clever.

Nope, becuase this is not just about being unflasifiable. That is the atheistic claim. Christians claim to have proof, but don't claim it is proof that we can trot out for others to view at will.

What makes you ignorant is that you claim anything you don't know and cannot be shown cannot be possible. Not the idea that you disbelieve, but to criticize people who do without proof that our ideas are wrong.. that is ALWAYS a position of ignorance, not truth.

That is true whether it is a scientist with a black box spitting out data you don't understand or someone entering matters of faith. To not believe because you don't understand.. is reasonable, but to dismiss those ideas as wrong becuase you yourself don't personally see it.. is not.

[chang50]

+1,Thats the one thing that really ticks me off about religion,the effing special pleading,there is precisely the same lack of evidence for every single one,be it Christianity,or FSMism,or the one I just invented 5 minutes ago.If we go by the age of a belief as an indicator of its veracity then the monotheistic ones are well down the pecking order.

You start with a perfectly legitimate argument, the very one I have made, specifically that one cannot claim that one faith is proven superior to another. NOte that I NEVER say that atheism is proven false or that people who are atheists are idiots for being atheists. (I DO occasionally call certain lines of reasoning..and specifically the claim that their ideas are superior "just becuase" to be idiotic).

HOWEVER, to stretch that into a claim that any idea at all is therefore equal is also idiotic. Christianity and Atheism each have long lines of thinking and various types of evidence people consider to be support. To claim that an idea generated 5 minutes ago.. or a couple of decades ago is equal to either is just wrong.

And the problem is that while so many of you atheists (you described yourself as such above) want to lay that blame on anyone with religion, you refuse to accept any culpability for the harm that your unreasoning disdain causes. And yes, this level of disdain and complete misunderstanding is just as unreasoning as those who declare anyone who cannot see Christ is evil.

We are in a time when the very notion of facts and reason are being challenged, when a large part of a generation has never truly been taught that there is any difference between fact and belief. That thinking is harmful to EVERYONE, but ironically, particularly atheists..and yet, you want to crow about feeding into that very garbage.

Learn the difference between truth, fact and belief! When you do, you learn that you gain nothing by dismissing ideas you cannot disprove. Arrogance is the way to extremism. Nazis, the Inquisition, Moaism .. all were born of very different beliefs, but all came to fruition because of arrogance that allowed them to ignore dissent.

I never said all ideas are equal,just that there is,IMHO, an equal lack of evidence for the ideas I quoted,ie virtually none.You really should stop demolishing strawmen.Perhaps you could expand on what you consider to be the various types of evidence for atheism,for me the evidence for atheism is the lack of evidence for theism,and that is all that is required.Accepting your statement I feel disdain for religion for the sake of argument,what possible harm can that cause?We are only exchanging ideas and speculations,perhaps this reveals you, and possibly many other believers,are heavily emotionally invested in your beliefs.We can be as disdainful as we wish regarding opinions and ideas because thats all they are,the rest of your post just attacks a succession of strawmen,you accuse me of arrogance,misunderstanding,and unreasoning.yet ironically these are fully displayed in your post,with a large dollop of fatuousness for good measure.