3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 162:
Line 162: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism (view source)
Revision as of 00:11, January 5, 2008
, 00:11, January 5, 2008→It's not a religion
:: It all sounds rather one-sided to me. You're right, we're wrong, and that's it!
:: It all sounds rather one-sided to me. You're right, we're wrong, and that's it!
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 31 December 2007 (EST)
:Obviously, Rootpilots6 does not know the history
behind Pastafarianism because it ''was'' created as a
mock religion to protest the actual allowing of
creationism to be taught in shools. They did do that.
:Contrary to your belief, the creator of
Pastafarianism did have a long rational debate at the
Kansas State Board of Education. With their descision
continue to allow the teaching of Creationism, The
creator of Pastafarianism proposed that the theory
according to the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster should be taught in schools to as a
''satire''. Satires are certainly not childish.
:Now if you would suggest that a neutral classroom
should introduce all theories into the clasroom, why
would they only introduce the ''Christian'' theory.
That's Christian spin. None of these other theories
are based on scientific method except for Evolution
which is why it is inane to introduce a massive amount
of theological theories into the classroom that have
no scientific merit whatsoever.
:Yet, all of these early creationist scientists didn't
actually study any science that would have
contradicted the Bible. However, this changed with
Charles Darwin. He never doubted the Bible as being
literal until his studies based on scientific method
contradicted the Bible. Nor did science only arise
because of a Christian creationist point of view. In
fact, the most contributing era to science was the
classical antiquity period which was before
Christianity arose.
:And yes, that is the reason that most other civilised
countries teach only evolution in their schools.
:Now if we don't have to teach any theories based on
Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying
Spaghetti Monster, why should we have to teach
theories based on the Christian viewpoint of a deity
which doesn't follow scientific method either?
:Yes, it would be biased to only include the Christian
God's theory. Please explain to me why the other
deities are of less significance. At the moment, the
naturalist theory is looked at because it is the only
one of all of them that is based on ''scientific
method''. Now that is definitely fair.
:Yet again, the bias from religious pressure groups is
the promotion of a theory that is not based on
scientific method. Atheist pressure groups are
actually promoting Evolution which is based on
scientific method.
:It does actually make sense that religion has been
used to invoke power on the gullible. History shows
it.
:Now you missed something here... Christians are
trying to impose their ''pseudoscientific'' views onto
the classroom while atheists are trying to impose
their ''scientific'' views on the classroom.
:Your argument is ironically the one that is
one-sided: Christian biased sided. However, I will
admit that I am biased to science. [[User:Wolverhampton|Wolverhampton]] 19:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)