277
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 136:
Line 136: + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 16:46, November 23, 2007
, 16:46, November 23, 2007→It's not a religion
:Pastafarianism is about a lot of things. It's origin is in an open letter addressed to the Kansas Board of Education (which at the time was debating whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools) in an attempt to prove that if even one non-scientifically provable theory of creation (and I'm using that term liberally) was to be taught in school, then any comparable theory should have to be taught as well. It also includes elements of Omphalism, i.e. that everything appears to be much older than it is because His Noodly Appendages interfere with our scientific equipment. The argument, like in the case of many parody religions, is founded on Russel's Teapot which holds that the burden of proof is on the believer, and not the skeptic since, according to actual religious tradition (i.e that the burden of proof is on the skeptic), it would be the responsibility of everyone else to prove that the FSM does not exist. [[User:DefiantElements|DefiantElements]] 23:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:Pastafarianism is about a lot of things. It's origin is in an open letter addressed to the Kansas Board of Education (which at the time was debating whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in schools) in an attempt to prove that if even one non-scientifically provable theory of creation (and I'm using that term liberally) was to be taught in school, then any comparable theory should have to be taught as well. It also includes elements of Omphalism, i.e. that everything appears to be much older than it is because His Noodly Appendages interfere with our scientific equipment. The argument, like in the case of many parody religions, is founded on Russel's Teapot which holds that the burden of proof is on the believer, and not the skeptic since, according to actual religious tradition (i.e that the burden of proof is on the skeptic), it would be the responsibility of everyone else to prove that the FSM does not exist. [[User:DefiantElements|DefiantElements]] 23:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::Pastafarianism is sarcastic mockery. A Sophists arrogant attempt to mock other religious beliefs in order to marginalize them. Or as it is here that once again the religious athiests are trying to explain away what they have little if no ability to conceptualize. How smug and sophisticated. Another cunningly devised fable. It is along the lines of prejudicial parody and satire meant to slander another religion. All this is supposed to expose the flaws in logic of all theistic religions? Guess what; you failed. It does however show the inability of non-theistic religion to use logic to identify its own failings in explaining the material universe as well as life itself. Pastafarianism isn't a religion, it's a propaganda attack on theistic religion from a non-theist. An exercise in religious bigotry that appeases a non-theist peer group. It shows the total lack of moral integrity to directly address so-called flaws in logic while manufacturing popular stereotypes of theistic religion. Here is what the title really says: non-theistic religion vs. theistic religion. Pastafarianism is about alot of things such as an inability to verbalize spatial concepts too complex for some people to discern and understand. Therefore they must resort to simplisticly vulgar depictions that only serve up their own ignorance in more abundant portions. It was meant as an insult to the intelligence of the Kansas Board of Education through over simplification and I'm surprised nobody will own up to that fact.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)