Difference between revisions of "Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(It's not a religion)
(It's not a religion)
Line 180: Line 180:
 
their ''scientific'' views on the classroom.
 
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)
 
: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)
 +
 +
:::When user Coventry returns, this time not as socks Alsace and Wolverhampton, he's going to put his money where his mouth is.  He's going to prove an example of evolution by using the scientific method only, and this example is the so-called evolution of the horse.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Revision as of 18:29, 4 January 2008

Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "Flying Spaghetti Monster" (FSM) is another word for "everything." The Flying Spaghetti Monster equals everything. Everthing is The Flying Spaghetti Monster. To deny that "He" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if The Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does The Flying Spaghetti Monster (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does The Flying Spaghetti Monster have a plan? Or is Everything (i.e. his noodly appendages) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies (did you know that superclusters of galaxies are shaped exactly like spaghetti threads, coincidence?) Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstein included) believe that time is not absolute and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or The Flying Spaghetti Monster) is sentient. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand.ME


Middle Man

I suppose cut and paste is the sincerest form of flattery. Everwill 09:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

May he touch you with his noodlely appendage! Ramen!

Here's what I actually wrote:

Why Atheism is ridiculous

Stick with me, this can get confusing for those who aren't highly verbal and good with spatial concepts. "God" is another word for "everything." God equals everything. Everthing is God. To deny that "God" exists is silly because the universe and everything in it exists. Thus, atheism is prepostorous if God is everything.

The only question (and it is a valid question) is whether Everything when taken as a whole is sentient or not.

In other words, does God (or "everything" if you prefer) think? Does God have a plan? Or is Everything (i.e. God) just ... here?

Some people prefer to believe that Everything is just randomness with no plan. "Everything" is just does its thing with no guiding force, no rules, no anything. Everything, of course in an ever changing but non-planned form, has always been here. Everything will always been here. Everything is nicely organized into protons and electrons and stars and galaxies. Lives come and go with no meaning whatsoever. All of this and more is "Everything".

Some people have come to realize that Everything seems to have a design and a plan, and that the Grand Architect planned everything. Some people (Einstien included) believe that time is an illusion and that the infinitely complex organizational structure of Everything implies one undeniable conclusion: Everything (or God) is sentient. God has a plan. That plan is far more complicated than we can possibly imagine or understand. Everwill 11:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT) Everwill 09:56, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Your argument has one fundamental flaw--you are assuming that God is everything which is something that is absouletly true. Lopku 8:50, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
I've complied your argument and run it. It has nothing to do with God. Here's your argument:

pound-define GOD everything int main(){

everything exists by definition of thing;
therefore, GOD exists;
return 1;

}

Here it is after preprocessing:

int main(){

everything exists by definition of thing;
therefore, everything exists;
return 1;

}

Where do you mention the omni-present flying fairy in the sky? User:Cthx


  • I've never spoken with, seen or heard any spagetti fly which was not first thrown, that's why I don't go off claiming I know what the Flying Spagett's Monster's will is.
  • I believe that in the material world science is the only way to the truth: if the evidence says it's so, I tend to believe it's true.
  • I believe human rights, democracy, honesty and equality for all are the highest universal values. I understand that each of these words can be twisted to drive a specific ideology and I do not support some of those political interpretations of these words.
  • I believe multi-nationalism is a 50 year old hoax. I believe that "diversity" is a word used as a club to blunt the achievements of the most successful cultures on the planet while saddling them with the responsibility to clean-up messes they didn't create.
  • I believe there would be no tax money is to spend on health care for the poor if the USA did not spend at least another $6 billion for each aircraft carrier.
  • I believe reason and logic are worth more than blind faith. I believe that people who don't understand the logic of others call it blind faith so that they can denigrate their logic.
  • I believe Jesus had much to teach, but he's been misinterpreted by User:Middle Man.
  • I believe religion is something between a person and his or her deity. I agree with our founding fathers that religion is an important part of public and private life but the belief in God doesn't not allow for the imposition of religion upon anyone.
  • I am an American citizen and know that 96% of the world population wishes they were Americans too. Everwill 10:07, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Atheism isn't ridiculous god answers prayers in three ways yes no and wait. If you were praying to god to win the lottery you would either win, lose but consider gods answer to be wait. In the win scenario you credit god for the win and if you lose god is telling you to wait he'll get to you. If you pray to a cellphone to win the lottery you will either win or lose but assume that the awnser is wait. What I'm getting at is that if you pray to god or a cellphone you will get the same resoult any win even with god or the cellphone on your side is just a coincdence. P.S: Its not a debate if their is only one point of view.ME


The Flying Spaghetti Monster is very forgiving, you may still repent for your blasphemy.

Middle Man

I'm not sure I'll ever understand your obsession with spaghetti, but at some point it stops driving your point and starts making you look really devoid of ideas. Your point is: God is as laughable and dubious an idea as the idea of a flying spaghetti monster. In other words, you can't combat logic with logic, so you'll make Rosie O'Donnell-styled faces and weird-noises to prove your point. Oh, I get it ... Everwill 10:54, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


Actually, it's called sarcasm: I'm pointing out that if your "logic" can prove the existence of God, it can also prove the existence of Zeus, Ra, Shiva, Marduk and, yes, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all I have to do is say that one of them is everything). I'm not saying God doesn't exist, I'm just saying there is no way to prove or disprove his existence, there never is with supernatural beings.

Middle Man

Yeah that's real funny. I get it.
It's a simple matter to prove that God exists. The hard part is figuring out what this means. It's also true that there's nothing easier to make fun of than something you don't understand. So it's no wonder you are so delighted with yourself.
When you decide to grow up and talk like an adult, then pick the word that makes you happy: God, Marduk, Luck, Shiva, g (the imaginary catalyst, see Atheism vs. Deism). Only when you have a word to describe everything can you examine what God means or is. Everwill 19:09, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


So you agree with me that the existence of Ra, Zeus or Marduk is equally plausible as the existence of the Abrahamic God? Middle Man


I agree that it's pointless to argue about which religion is better with someone who does not acknowledge the existence of a deity. Everwill 08:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
If one starts out by stating that Atheism is ridiculous, just exactly who is supposed to take up the debate? Of course, believers view atheism as incorrect, just as adults view Santa as fiction. To whom is your discussion directed?--Eastfernstreet 14:55, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Let Me Paint a Picture

Just suppose there was a universe in a multiverse far far away....

... and in that universe, which came from nothing, and had no organisation, no structure, by some remote chance of fate that only happens once in every 10 to the squillion years, that matter self organised into a self-reproducing molecule. To begin with, that structure was crude, basic and lacked any real semblance of we might call life, but it had one single feature, that it was able to self-replicate (albeit somewhat haphazardly) and reproduce. Reproduce it did, and over time there were many copies of this thing. I say 'thing'; I actually mean things, because from this simple rudimentary molecule, came others, better equipped to reproduce, and so began the process of reproduction, change, survival and adaptation.


A squillion years passed and that self-reproducing molecule had became so sophisticated that it was no longer a molecule, but had packaged itself with a coating of material for protection; that material had its own molecules which told it how to reproduce and survive, how to accrete and modify naturally occurring minerals in the surrounding context, and how to use the natural energy of starlight to produce different molecules.


Time passed, and these packages of molecules began to take on a myriad forms; some remained stationary, making complex molecules from the atmosphere and starlight; others roamed about using the stationary packages as raw materials to create their own package coverings. The diversity was amazing. The single molecule had by now invaded every part of the planet; every ecological niche was filled by a different type of package, and everything worked. Many of the moving packages began to use other packages for their material needed to grow and survive; some got rather good at it. Some even began to be able to structure rudimentary plans of how to do it better, and these were passed on to other packages of the same type. These packages became so good at adapting to their environment that they began to shape their environment for themselves; at first, simply finding cosy spots to rest, then hollowing out spaces or using material to construct things.

One day, one of these packages, used the complex set of molecules within its package not to plan a nice cosy spot to rest, or to work out even better ways of accreting more material to itself, but to ask the question 'Why am I here?' That unanswered question inevitably led to other questions, such as 'What is space?' 'What is time?', and 'Why is so much of my life spent looking for nice cosy spots to rest and better ways of accreting material to myself?'.

A squillion years later and the descendants of these packages were still asking themselves the same questions. Long ago they had enlisted the help of most of the universe in their quest to find the answers. They had harnessed the power of the very small: atomic nuclei and quantum fluctuations to power and drive their auxilliary questioning devices; they had reached out on the very large scale to the furthest depths of their universe, and all were connected. The question was still unanswered until one day, the huge, all-encomassing packeage managed to make the final connection which pieced everything in the universe together. Then it all fell into place. All at once the package could see - not only where everything is, but how everything was, and where it will be. The package knew all the answers, and knew that it could change them.

For a time, the package wallowed in smugness and self-satisfaction. It had answered all of the questions that could usefully be asked, and many that were useless. There followed a period of boredom followed by a long peiod of emptiness. Most of all, it was lonely. Desperately and unutterably lonely. How lonely you cannot possibly imagine. Destined to be for the whole of time without any other being for comfort or companionship. It craved attention. For a while it went mad. Then out of that madness came a brilliant idea. As it could change time and space, why not look back over its long multisquillion year history and change things?

The universal package didnt really approve of its humble beginnings so it decided that a tweak here or there wouldn't go amiss. The first package to ask the question 'Why am I here?' didn't really seem right. Wouldn't it be better if the first question recognised the importance of where that primitive package was heading? Why not change that question to 'Who put me here?' or 'What am I destined for?', or more importantly 'Is this everything, or is there something else?'. Best of all, putting the idea 'Who put me here?' meant that primitive packages would come to a realisation (but not understand the significance) of a universal package, and would begin to talk to it.

Its first attempts to do this were crude and clumsy. They missed the mark by miles. Packages attributed 'universal package status' to stars, minerals, and other packages, but not the one universal package itself. Then it hit upon the solution, almost by accident - to put into the mind of one lowly package the idea that this lowly package was the naturally occuring descendant of the one universal package. That idea was so powerful that it reverberated down through the whole of time like an avalanche down a mountain slope. All at once, all the packages wanted to talk to the universal package, and it was happy. It was no longer alone, and it was loved.

Some packages believed in the one universal package; other packages believed that they had arisen from the mud of the planet in a multi squillion year history. Did it matter to the universal package? Not a jot. They were both right - and both wrong. It amused the universal package to watch the antics of these primitve packages arguing with each other in such a pointless manner. This was entertainment, and it was certainly much better than being bored, lonely or going mad.

--CatWatcher 02:35, 29 April 2007 (EDT)


It's not a religion

Uh, pastafarianism isn't actually a religion, it's a satire of religion, atheists don't actually believe in the Flying Spagetti Monster, there use the concept to demonstrate logic flaws in religion.

And the the poster who stated that God is everything and by rejecting God atheists reject everything, atheists reject the concept of religion and a supernatural being who determines the outcome of the universe. They do not reject the universe or things which they believe to be real, and hence do not reject everything. And Einstein did not believe time was an illusion, he believed it was relative to the frame of reference of an observer, just as he believed mass and length were and that the speed of light was the only constant. DegreeOfProof 00:41, 15 July 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. 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. It is along the lines of a prejudicial parody and satire meant to slander another religion much like in Germany from 1933 to 1945. Note the use of cartoonish characters. 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. Here is what the title really says: non-theistic religion vs. theistic religion. It was meant as an insult to the intelligence of the Kansas Board of Education through over simplification and I'm surprised nobody can even point out that fact.--Roopilots6 11:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)
The purpose of Pastafarianism was to protest the Kansas Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in classrooms. The point being is that creationism should not be taught in schools simply because creationism is not scientific. Raymond 18:37, 10 December 2007 (EST)
The point of Pastafarianism is the same as any other attempt to belittle those that don't fit someone's political, religious view. Mockery through parady and childish satire which is also known as propaganda. Facts aren't even bothered with. The science behind the Creation is the same as the faithful evolutionist uses but of course excludes since it doesn't fit the belief system requirements of evolutionary theory. I can accept the fact that there are two views here and be tolerant of that point. What isn't acceptable is to have a different point of view that the faithful adherents of the sacred theory of evolution have that won't allow other scientifically valid theories accepted only because they challenge their own. Proving therefore that it ultimately requires a faith like belief system in order for it to be kept alive. This is the whole point. You've yet to prove your theory (except to the faithful) so you can't exclude other theories.--Roopilots6 13:09, 11 December 2007 (EST)
No, it isn't. Do you even know the history behind Pastafarianism? It was created as a mock religion to protest the Kansas State Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in schools. It is nothing childish. it is a protest against how pressure groups can indtroduce Christian bias into an non-theocratic classroom. I don't know where you are getting your definition of propaganda but it is way out of context. Propagandqa is not childish satire and any legitimate dictionary can quote you on that. There is no science beind creationism; this is the reason that most other civilised countries do not teach it in their public schools. Since the pseudoscience of Christian-perspective creationsim can be regarded as legitimate, why can't all forms of creationism be regarded as legitimate? Do we really have to teach an alternate theory that the Earth was created by Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster? If we don't, it would be biased only to include the Christian God's theory. That is the reason for the creation of Pastafarianism. It is a protest of the inane bias by fundamentalist pressure groups that want to use religion to invoke power among the gullible by impopsing their pseudoscientific views in the classroom. Coventry 19:53, 30 December 2007 (EST)
So all you're stating here is that God doesn't exist, and we should believe your word on the subject, as well as every like-minded individual? Karajou 20:04, 30 December 2007 (EST)
"Do you even know the history behind Pastafarianism? It was created as a mock religion ...": Isn't that consistent with what Roopilots6 said?
"...the Kansas State Board of Education's allowing of creationism to be taught in schools.": I'm sure they never did that.
"It is nothing childish.": Mocking rather than rational debate is not childish?
"it is a protest against how pressure groups can indtroduce Christian bias into an non-theocratic classroom.": That's evolutionary spin for "it's a protest against allowing any other view than ours into supposedly-neutral classrooms".
"There is no science beind creationism;": So how come almost all the early scientists were creationists? And how come science only arose because of a Christian (creationist) worldview? I'd suggest there's more science behind creationism than behind the atheist origins myth (evolution).
"...is the reason that most other civilised countries do not teach it in their public schools.": No, that's not the reason.
"Do we really have to teach an alternate theory that the Earth was created by Zeus, Brahman, Russell's teapot, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?": No. Is anybody claiming that we should? No. So why bring up red herrings?
"If we don't, it would be biased only to include the Christian God's theory.": No, it would be balanced between teaching a creator vs. no creator. At the moment, only the no-creator view is allowed a look in. Is that fair?
"It is a protest of the inane bias by fundamentalist pressure groups ...": As opposed to the bias by atheist pressure groups?
"... that want to use religion to invoke power among the gullible ...": Huh? I'm not sure that even makes sense.
"..by impopsing their pseudoscientific views in the classroom": As opposed to the atheists already doing just that?
It all sounds rather one-sided to me. You're right, we're wrong, and that's it!
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. Yes, 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. Wolverhampton 19:11, 4 January 2008 (EST)
When user Coventry returns, this time not as socks Alsace and Wolverhampton, he's going to put his money where his mouth is. He's going to prove an example of evolution by using the scientific method only, and this example is the so-called evolution of the horse. Karajou 19:29, 4 January 2008 (EST)