Monday, March 08, 2010

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

I've been meaning to write up a little something on the Flying Spaghetti Monster for some time now. Finally getting around to it.

You can see some background here at the FSM's official website. Knock yourself out. The FSM is basically a sort of spoof (sprinkled with a lame attempt at wit) on the Intelligent Design's "unknown Designer" to the tune of "You believe God is the designer, but I think that this Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world in 4 slightly-hungover days, and I believe it because he touched me with his noodly appendage".  However, it also has applicability to the sort of presuppositional argument (ie, the TAG) I usually use in arguing for the justification of presupposing God's existence.
An interaction in which the FSM is mentioned usually includes "Why can't I presuppose the existence of the FSM?" or "I believe the FSM is the designer!" Here's a recent example, even:

PChem said: At some point you have to explain why the universe is here. This is a basic philosophical question that a valid world view should be able to handle.

Dr Funkenstein said: well the invisible pink unicorn would 'explain' it as well as the Christian God, but all that shows is that simply putting forward a content free explanation (and one in itself that would also require an explanation) for the sake of having one is not always better than admitting ignorance.

So here are some principal rebuttals to the existence of the FSM. If you've been linked to this page, you need to answer ALL of these challenges in order for your claim to believe in the FSM to be taken seriously. If you can't or are unwilling, I have nothing more to say to you until you own up to what you actually believe (everyone knows you don't really believe in the FSM), since I'm not interested in discussing stupid fairy tales. Also, you should know that Dick Dawk cites this argument all the time, and it's more than amusing. The guy is completely in over his head when he tries to make philosophical statements. He likes to say "there's as much evidence for a designer as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster". Little does he realise (since he's not a particularly deep thinker) that there's as much evidence for evidence, or other minds, or the reliability of one's senses, as there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster - none.

Challenges for the Pastafarian to answer:

How does the FSM account for the origin of the universe?
The FSM is supposedly made of...spaghetti and meatballs. Did it precede the creation of space in which to exist? How does matter, specifically a delicious Italian meal, exist without space to occupy?


Since the FSM's nature is not timeless, how does it solve the problem of entropy or infinite regress?
If the FSM is supposed to be eternal and since it is composed of matter, how does it escape the problem of entropy? Whence does it derive its energy? How is it that all its energy was not used up an infinite amount of time ago? If it has infinite energy, how do you know that and how does limited matter contain it? If you answer that "it has infinite energy", why does that sound suspiciously like the God of the Bible?
How does it solve the problem of past infinite regress, where if matter and time have always existed (meaning that an infinite number of seconds have already transpired), continuing to exist into the future means that we are continually adding to infinity? (This is, of course, the exact same argument one uses in arguing against the past eternality of the universe itself. It's the Pastafarians' fault for positing a 'god' composed of matter.)


How is the FSM sufficient as a foundation for all reason and intelligibility?
What is the FSM's relationship to the laws of logic and of mathematics?
Does the impossibility of the contrary exist for Pastafarianism? If so, what is your defeater for Christianity?
Speaking of which...

Why is it that enough questioning of Pastafarians or approximations thereof always leads you back to a clear imitation of the God of the Bible?
See a post I did on this a while back.
The idea here is that the FSM is supposed to be an obviously false satire of the God of the Bible, and in showing that one can muster the same kind of argumentation for the FSM as one can for tGotB, show that tGotB is irrational. But what one finds is, if one asks enough questions, the Pastafarian always ends up stealing ideas and theology from the Christian God. Alternatively, when one presses enough, one finds the Pastafarian positing internally inconsistent dogma about the FSM, leading to incoherency. Multiple examples exist in the just-cited post.


There is no serious self-revelation of the FSM. Thus, how can anyone know anything about the FSM?
This is a question I'm always asking of non-Christians - how do you know? The God of the Bible has revealed Himself, in the Bible. If He had not revealed some things about Himself, there would be no way for any human to have access to knowledge about God. He is not composed of matter and is therefore beyond the reach of science. He is not composed of energy per se and is transcendent, so cannot be measured or manipulated and His repeatable effects reliably studied. He is generally invisible, does not generally speak audibly, etc. Any philosophical exercise or thought experiment has no basis with which to begin, and so would have no guarantee of reaching any detailed result or confidence in the accuracy thereof.
The way we know about Him is that He has spoken through prophets and through the God-man, Jesus and His apostles, and this God-man predicted He would be killed and rise from the dead, and then did it. He predicted that worship of Him would arise from within a fiercely nationalistic and fiercely opposed religious context and have success all over the world, and here today is the church.
What is the comparable revelation from the FSM? How can we know it is actually revelation from the FSM? What verification, such as miracles or fulfilled prophecy, has been advanced from the Pastafarian side?


Does the FSM provide any foundation for any objective morality?

Should I believe that the FSM exists? Why?
Should I hunt down and kill all Pastafarians and their children? Why not?
How do we know unless the FSM provides some overarching prescriptive standard in comparison with which we can determine good/bad and right/wrong value judgments?
(Yep, same argument as the commonly used one against atheism.)


What precisely has the FSM done?
Why is it that the FSM blog is full of man-made drawings and representations of the FSM with nothing else? When this supposed higher being supposedly exists, why is the only "evidence" things that humans have done? What sets the FSM apart from other imaginary deities like Vishnu or the sprite in yonder large oak tree?
The answer is obvious - this is a made-up spoof, a satire. Satire, when done well, can stay with someone for a while. When done poorly, it's worth a smirk; then one moves on. This is the latter kind.
And no, I don't want to hear some throwaway "the God of the Bible hasn't done anything either!" Bring a decent rebuttal to the resurrection of Jesus, a rebuttal to the growth and existence of the Christian church, an explanation of the masses of people who preferred painful, messy deaths to denying something they were in a position to know for sure was wrong, an explanation of the origin of time, space, energy, and the universe, an explanation for the origin of life, an account for the diversity of life that doesn't beg the question in terms of the fossil record and by trying to demonstrate unguided processes by means of intelligently-guided experimentation, and that would be a good start.


Why are the claims made by the FSM "religion" so incoherent?
For example:
It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel.
It's times like this when I wonder why I'm wasting my time. I thought you SAW the FSM, and felt it "touch you" with its "noodly/noodley (depends on which Pastafarian is writing, I suppose) appendage". Did the FSM create itself? How does that work, exactly?

But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.
This is obviously meant to be a swipe at creationism, but it's very poorly done. Satire has to be precise, else it's a strawman, and this is a strawman. Further, this raises serious questions about the reliability of ANY observation in the FSM-verse. And how does the Pastafarian know this about the FSM? Further, given how much of a strawman this is, why can't the FSM correctly represent or bring its followers to correctly represent competing worldviews, such as Christianity?


Why is the founder of the FSM "religion" so incoherent?
Have a look at Venganza's FAQs:
There are plenty of good Christians (and Muslims, and Buddhists, and Hindus), and plenty of bad ones.
No explanation how he knows good from bad. It's a pretty important question!

Dogma is bad for everyone.
1) That's a dogmatic statement. I guess he didn't really mean it, then. Or he's a sociopath. Or none too bright.
2) This is nothing short of an open admission that the FSM is not to be taken seriously. If the founder doesn't take it seriously, why should anyone else?
3) On what basis, then, does he presume to tell anyone else what the FSM is and isn't? I mean, he NAMED it the FSM! What right does he have to tell me what to call that thing, or to draw it? Don't I have freedom of expression too? Can't I show you a blank piece of paper and say to him, "That thing you call the FSM I have reproduced on this sheet of blank paper, and this is just as valid as yours, since dogma is bad for everyone. Further, it's not actually the FSM; I believe this is my pet Sterrance, who is either visible or invisible, as you like."? Of course, since dogma is bad.

Which leads me to:

Why so much Jon Stewart-like disingenuousness and inconsistency with respect to whether Pastafarianism is satire or not?
Whenever it suits the FSM people, the FSM is real. Whenever you get too close to inflicting a fatal wound on the FSM position, alluvasudden "it's just a spoof on you stupid ID people!"
Why do so many Pastafarians pretend to play "FSM is my god" when convenient and go back to professing atheism or agnosticism on their days off?


What is the FSM's answer to the problem of evil?
It's funny to me that skeptics like to bring up the problem of evil pretty often, but then on the other hand cite things like FSM or paganism or something that have no chance of bringing forth any decent theodicy. Does the FSM define evil? Is there a law to which humans must conform? If so, what is the remedy for the lawbreaking? If not, isn't it the case that it's completely unimportant and inconsequential if I don't believe in the FSM? Or the truth?
Is there any resolution to the suffering we see in the world? How did it all begin? Is human life meaningful at all? If so, on what basis? If not, why believe in the FSM at all, and along those lines, why "evangelise" about it?


Why do so few people believe in the FSM?


Does the FSM ensure the continual consistency of observed physical laws, thus ensuring the utility of scientific inquiry and experimentation? The God of the Bible is explicitly said, in the Bible, to hold the universe together, and to have promised that the world will continue as is until the Eschaton. Atheism labors under the problem of induction, specifically that the patterns observed in the recorded past are in no way certain to continue into the future, even one more second. How does the FSM solve this problem, and how does the Pastafarian know?


If Pastafarianism is true, what explanation does it give for the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And why are the arguments against the resurrection of Jesus so poor?


All that to say, those who cite the FSM as some kind of decent argument have not done nearly enough heavy lifting in terms of establishing the boundaries and content of the concept they're proposing. They seem not even to realise the necessity thereof, and that willful ineptitude reveals how seriously they take the FSM as a viable concept - they don't. These questions have been dealt with for centuries by Christian thinkers, both clergy and laypeople, and even intellectual dwarves like myself. Where has similar treatment been given to these vital issues from the Pasta side?


See also Mariano's (of True FreeThinker) treatment of this issue. The FSM (like its idiot cousins the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Cosmic Catfish, and all other variants) was funny the first time I heard it, but how funny is a bad joke the 50th time around? Dick Dawk and his friends could also stand to learn that it's in bad taste to laugh at one's own joke all the time.

79 comments:

  1. Rhology asked:
    ---
    Why is it that enough questioning of Pastafarians or approximations thereof always leads you back to a clear imitation of the God of the Bible?
    ---

    This is the key issue, and totally refutes the claim of "Dr Funkenstein" that Christians put "forward a content free explanation" when appealing to God. It would only be "content free" if the God identified didn't matter. But since Christians have a very specific definition of God--a God who has particular attributes--it's not in the least "content free."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rho:

    How does matter, specifically a delicious Italian meal, exist without space to occupy?

    Which raises an interesting question. What is God made of? If matter, then there's the same problem as with the FSM. If energy, how does energy exist without mass?

    ReplyDelete
  3. God is spirit - John 4. His power is supernatural, not "energy" as you're thinking of it.

    That's a great question for the FSM - how DOES energy exist w/o matter?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually I'm asking Pastafarians.
    Spaghetti is not analogous to photons. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's supernatural spaghetti.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How do you know? And how does "supernatural" spaghetti interact with matter so as to touch ppl with its noodly appendage?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The supernatural FSM interacts with matter the same way other supernatural beings interact with matter. Very carefully.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sounds alot like the God of the Bible. Why are you playing copycat?

    Besides, HOW DO YOU KNOW that the FSM is "supernatural matter"? What precisely is supernatural matter? How do you know that the FSM interacts "carefully" with matter?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rho:

    Sounds alot like the God of the Bible.

    That's the point.

    Besides, HOW DO YOU KNOW that the FSM is "supernatural matter"

    Revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What revelation? To whom? When? How can it be verified? What was its exact content?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is fascinating how quickly this myth is actually given up. In just one question its essential essence changes from pasta to spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The revelation is available to all who seek it. The revaluation comes through our sensus pastus.

    Verified? Is verification verifiable?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Please define the sensus pastus. Whence comes it? How is it accessed? How does the FSM interface with it? How does the material spaghetti of the FSM interact with a sensus pastus?

    Is verification verifiable? You know my answer. Now YOU answer the question.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a good friend once remarked, the FSM is the intellectual equivalent of a "your mom" joke. NAL is doing an excellent job confirming this assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why do they have to pick on Spaghetti?

    I love Spaghetti.

    P.S. Good post, Rho!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sensus pastitus is an awareness or sense of FSM implanted in all human minds. Even those who object to the existence of FSM have in their minds an idea of such a being, and therefore are aware of FSM.

    Those who don't believe in FSM have had their sensus pastitus broken by their sin. One such sin would be denial of FSM.

    If FSM exists, then FSM would have created a sensus pastitus, and Pastarians are rational in their belief in FSM without evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  17. How does the FSM enlighten you about the nature of evidence, such that you have mentioned you don't know it?

    How do you know about this sensus?
    How do you know what sin is? How do you know that denial of the FSM is sin?

    Why do you sound alot like a(n inept) Christian, but substituting Pastafarian words where we usually use "Jesus"?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Equivocation does not change the fact that when atheists speak of the FSM they just end up speaking of the same being they are trying to ridicule. God by any other name is still God, as William Lane Craig pointed out in his debate with Lewis Wolpert where Wolpert made up the all powerful computer example. It just makes atheists look silly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. NAL said...

    [SS] "It's supernatural spaghetti."

    1. Define 'spaghetti' and 'supernatural'

    2. Once (1) is complete, how is this statement, i.e., [SS], not a contradiction given the essential characteristic(s) of spaghetti and the supernatural?

    3. If the charge of contradiction is sidestepped, what demarcates natural from supernatual spaghetti without changing any essential properties?

    ReplyDelete
  20. What is "supernatural" spaghetti? Spaghetti by definition has volume, taste, texture, shape, etc. It has atoms and molecules. Your spaghetti monster doesn't sound very spaghetti like at all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rho:

    How do you know what sin is? How do you know that denial of the FSM is sin?

    The Gospel of the FSM.

    Why do you sound alot like a(n inept) Christian, but substituting Pastafarian words where we usually use "Jesus"?

    Doing my Rhology imitation. I especially liked the verification part. It was vintage you. Admit it, you smiled.

    ReplyDelete
  22. It seems to me, and I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with it, that the winner (if one can say that there's a "winner" of these debate-discussions) that the winner is the one who doesn't look as stupid or as wrapped up in inescapable self-refuting positions which are found to be wide-open to internal critique...

    as much as the other guy.

    By that measure, I'd say the Christian theists are the winners. By far.

    And not just in this thread, but just about anywhere where the discussion is held and where you have a semi-decent Christian apologist.

    Flying Spaghetti Monster? Gimme a break.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nice post Rhology.

    There's clever satire (Gulliver's Travels, Don Quixote) that is both entertaining and thought-provoking. And then there's just idiotic spoofs that require nothing more than passing familiarity (The Naked Gun, Meet the Spartans) to get a superficial chuckle at the mock-job. FSM fits neatly into the latter.

    In addition to the major disanalogy between Pastafarianism and Christianity, the author of the site shows a horrid disregard for logic in his contention that ID is an 'appeal to ignorance,' because its proponents disbelieve his naturalist dogma on the origin of life etc. due to its glaring lack of evidence. He contends that IDers simply haven't given science time to discover how it all came about by itself, such assertions apparently based upon blind faith that the evidence will eventually come to light.

    Given that it's quite defeasible to say that, "mechanisms that are apparently designed have a designer," there isn't a tenable reason to believe that its opposite should instead be assumed by default based upon evidence that may or may not be forthcoming. Given his reliance upon 'undiscovered discoveries' as the evidence that he hopes will reconcile evident design with his designer-less theories, all he's really doing is shifting the burden of proof from his own unbacked position onto the theist, essentially telling the latter that he "can't disprove it." To state something to the effect of, "Your rejection of naturalism in favor of design due to naturalism's lack of evidence is appealing to lack of evidence" shows a fundamental ignorance of binary logic:

    Since the issue of 'design or no' is a binary question, rejection of naturalistic explanations based upon any lack of any believable evidence (or even conceivable mechanisms that can be expounded in any detail) where origins are concerned is quite logically sound, which would leave intelligent design of some sort as the only apparent alternative. To argue that one should simply assume naturalist just-so stories based upon non-evidence, and in doing so adamantly reject any theory of design regardless of how well it fits the facts, is ignorant question-begging to the most ridiculous degree.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow, this took off since I last looked at it :-) I think NAL ought to recognize at least one thing by his constant movement toward Christian theism. Namely: suppose Christianity *IS* false and there is no God. Were you to invent one, you'd have to invent a God compatible with the basic essense of Christian theism in order to avoid logically contradicting yourself.

    Which means, again supposing that there is no God, theists are far from stupid. In fact, we've invented the only logically possible God. This shows that theists of the Judeo-Christian stripe have a much higher fidelity to logic than anything a FSM "proponent" could ever muster.

    Therefore, for all NAL's blustering, the only thing he's established is that if God exists, He must be like the Christian God on some critical, foundational issues. In trying to refute Christian claims, he's actually demonstrated they are far more robust and cohere to reality far stronger than gods that are intentionally made up.

    Another thing NAL might wish to consider is why, if theism *IS* manufactured and is akin to the FSM, would ANYONE believe in it. No one believes in FSM, and in fact most can quite easily point out the flaws in FSM. But if someone is inventing theism wholecloth, why would we end up with only roughly 3-5% of the world being atheists?

    ReplyDelete
  25. If the arguments for God were so logically compelling, there would be no need to posit sensus divinitatis.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Nal,

    Asked you some questions, waiting for an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  27. NAL said...

    If the arguments for God were so logically compelling, there would be no need to posit sensus divinitatis.

    3/08/2010 4:33 PM

    If the arguments against God were so logically compelling, there would be no need to posit memes and mind viruses.

    ReplyDelete
  28. NAL said...

    If the arguments for God were so logically compelling, there would be no need to posit sensus divinitatis.

    3/08/2010 4:33 PM

    The sensus divinitatis isn't posited to prover or otherwise demonstrate that God exists. It would still be posited even if there were an argument the premises of which were accepted by all rational cognizers and which concluded that God exists.

    Your comment was about as wide of the mark as if I were to say, "If the arguments for an external world were so logically compelling, there would be no need to posit the senses."

    You're also confusing reasons for belief with causes of belief or cognitive mechanisms by which beliefs are gained.

    ReplyDelete
  29. NAL said:
    ---
    If the arguments for God were so logically compelling, there would be no need to posit sensus divinitatis.
    ---

    When, at best, 5% of the world disagrees with a position, are you really insisting that we should just assume the 5% is correct? Do you really think that 95% of the world is idiots? If so, just remember that they're using the same "evolved" brains you are to come to their determinations, so if 95% can blow it on such a "simple" concept as the existence of God, how can you be sure of *ANYTHING* you accept?

    ReplyDelete
  30. My understanding of sensus divinitatis is that it provides warrant for Christian belief in God. Perhaps I am in error.

    It seems to me that a compelling logical argument should provide that warrant.

    The doubters within religions provide ample evidence that the logical arguments are not compelling.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I still asked some questions of your FSM defense that have went ignored . . .

    "My understanding of sensus divinitatis is that it provides warrant for Christian belief in God. Perhaps I am in error."

    Well, first off there is no single, monolithic account of the role of the SD. If we're talking Plantinga, then on the externalist account he offers, it does.

    "It seems to me that a compelling logical argument should provide that warrant.

    But this just shows how much you don't know about matters epistemological. First, if you mean this constraint to be universal, then guess what, you are not warranted in believing most of what you believe.

    Second, what about this very belief of yours, i.e., that for a belief to be warranted it needs "a logically compelling argument"? Does this belief require said argument? If not, why does the Christian's? What standard do you use to determine when a belief needs said warrant-providing arguments and when it does not.

    Third, suppose you are accused of a crime. All the evidence seems to point against you. A man who looks very much like you is caught on tape committing the crime. That you had motive is established. You have no alibi, etc. However, suppose that you know you went for a walk in the woods all by yourself at the exact time the crime was committed. You have clear and powerful memorial beliefs about your walk. However, since you cannot provide a "logically compelling argument", are you unwarranted in your belief that you are innocent? Of course not. Your constraints simply prove too much.

    Fourth, in line with the above, this shows that a theist may have logically compelling (to him, since this is person relative, as I said above, no one as universally compelling arguments for virtually any interesting claim) but that he need nothave them. These points can be shown to support at least two interesting claims: (a) Christian laymen, like old ladies and little kids,can be warranted in their beliefs even in the absence of "logically compelling arguments", and (b) the warrant any Christian has for his beliefs need not be based on "logically compelling arguments" in order for those beliefs to be rational.

    Fifth, it is simply a fact that in many cases what we know far outstrips what we can show.

    "The doubters within religions provide ample evidence that the logical arguments are not compelling."


    Besides what else can be said, that's hardly interesting since the doubters of an external world, other minds, the senses, the past, and all arguments for atheism, agnosticism, etc., provide ample evidence that "the logical arguments are not compelling."

    ReplyDelete
  32. Second, what about this very belief of yours, i.e., that for a belief to be warranted it needs "a logically compelling argument"?

    That is not an accurate assessment of my statement. My statement said that a logically compelling argument should provide warrant, not that a belief requires same.

    If you think that a logically compelling argument should not provide said warrant, then you and I disagree.

    I tend to think of logically compelling arguments in more of a mathematical sense rather than a personal sense. A logical proof, like a mathematical proof, is beyond subjectivism. Logically compelling arguments, while not proofs, should be accepted by those who value rational thinking. Illogical arguments should be rejected by those who value rational thinking. I strive to do both.

    I hope to improve my rational thinking by discarding or modifying some arguments while sharpening others. I'm sure you will help me in this quest.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think it is interesting that in this entire thread provided by NAL the core question leading to this discussion is not even addressed. In my original exchange with Dr. Funkenstein, he proposed that the IPU (here FSM) is as adequate of an explanation as the Christian God because both content free. I think NALs comments are pretty clear that they are not content free. Indeed, one must propose a great deal of content if the IPU, FSM, or whatever is posited as the creator.

    Certainly NAL does not really believe in the FSM nor does he believe in the Christian God. If so, how does he plan to address the central question proposed, namely why is there something rather than nothing at all?

    ReplyDelete
  34. A logical proof, like a mathematical proof, is beyond subjectivism.

    How do you know that? How do you know logic is actually real?

    ReplyDelete
  35. NAL,

    "That is not an accurate assessment of my statement.

    I wasn't assessing your statement but applying different questions to its vague and ambiguous nature.

    " My statement said that a logically compelling argument should provide warrant, not that a belief requires same."

    That's entirely underwhelming. Of course a "logically compelling argument provides warrant!"

    Of course, what you said was rather stronger than the above weak and entirely unintersting claim above. You said: "If the arguments for God were so logically compelling, there would be no need to posit sensus divinitatis."

    And that's a much stronger claim than your heavily qualifed claim. My statements addressed this claim, the "If ________, then _______ statement. I wondered if your statement was a general rule or if you just applied it to belief in God. If the former, my arguments go through. If the latter, how do you justify the double standard?

    You further tried to explain what you meant, i.e., that the SD provides "warrant." I then showed you that on that understanding your statement was false. Never did I claim or argue against the idea that "a logically compelling argument should provide warrant." You need something different than that, however.

    "I tend to think of logically compelling arguments in more of a mathematical sense rather than a personal sense. A logical proof, like a mathematical proof,"

    On this sense, then you do not have a "logically compelling argument" for almost everything you believe.

    "Logically compelling arguments, while not proofs,"

    So mathematical proofs are not proofs?

    "Logically compelling arguments, while not proofs, should be accepted by those who value rational thinking."

    No doubt they should be.

    Anyway, at this point I don't know the relevance of your initial claim, and I'm uncertain you do too.

    ReplyDelete
  36. NAl,

    Hat to bring up the elephant in the room, but you're still dodging my first set of questions to you at

    3/08/2010 2:37 PM

    ReplyDelete
  37. I a little confused. First Paul quotes me:

    "It seems to me that a compelling logical argument should provide that warrant.

    and listed five points immediately thereafter. Now he says that my statement is "underwhelming". Why quote it in the first place?

    So mathematical proofs are not proofs?

    What?

    Apparently I am unable to express my thoughts adequately to be understood.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Now he says that my statement is "underwhelming". Why quote it in the first place?

    Maybe because you're taking your own statement out of context??

    In your original statement where you said "It seems to me that a compelling logical argument should provide that warrant" the word "that" referred to belief in God (or at least this is the most natural reading).

    Later you qualified this to say that compelling logical arguments should provide warrant itself. Not just warrant in god-beleif.

    ReplyDelete
  39. NAL, perhaps you could explain why Christians are supposed to be impressed when atheists imitate the Christian God?

    What if some guy, call him Daniel, had an uncle Bob who was 57, balding, and diabetic and some other guy, call him Tom, comes up to me and starts going “Ha ha! What an idiot, you don’t have an uncle Bob! Hey look everyone actually there is an uncle Flob”

    Daniel: What?

    Tom: Ha ha, don’t you get it? There is no Bob… It’s Flob!!

    Daniel: Uh, Bob’s right here he is 57, balding and diabetic… seems real to me

    Tom: Yeah, yea right. Flob is 57, balding and diabetic too!! Ha ha! Oh but he is made out of peanut-butter.

    Daniel: Huh?? He doesn’t look like he is made out of peanut-butter.

    Tom: Ha ha! That’s because it’s non-peanut-butter peanut-butter that has non-peanut-butter properties. Ha ha! I’m so genius!

    Daniel: So… how is it peanut-butter?

    Tom: *silence*

    Isn’t this what the FSM is doing? It just takes all those things which Christians attribute to God and attributes them to the FSM and then adds an absurd property to try and make it look absurd (except the Christian God doesn’t have the absurd property) and when this new theist is question about the absurd property we get absolute silence. I guess everyone is supposed to buy it because these new theists thump their chest a lot while giving the spiel?

    ReplyDelete
  40. NAL said:
    The doubters within religions provide ample evidence that the logical arguments are not compelling.

    The doubters within atheism, given that most of the population of the world throughout history have been religious, provide ample evidence that the logical arguments for atheism are not compelling.

    Too bad NAL's the only one willing to defend the FSM, even though I've been spreading this link around.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rhology? That sounds familiar.

    I don't recall trading you. Shouldn't I get someone in return? I'll take Bridges or Engwer. I'll have the contract sent over to Hays.

    Great post!

    ReplyDelete
  42. To trade me for one of those guys, I think you're gonna need to be prepared to toss in some cash, and at minimum a 2nd-round pick.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The God of the Bible has revealed Himself, in the Bible.

    This statement is inherently flawed. Following this statement, I may safely presume the existence of the Cat in the Hat, Elmo, and most certainly Spaghetti. Clearly, Spaghetti as a food was exactly the Divine revelation you request. I know this to be true because Spaghetti exists. Honestly, you believe in your god because the Bible tells you to, and you believe the Bible because your god tells you to. Do you not see this as slightly circular logic? Go through and answer all of your own questions about your god first, and then challenge others.

    Also, to Peter Pike, you say 95% of the world believes in the same god you do. Do you then suggest that Allah, Buddha, Tom Cruise, and that one cow's left testicle are all the same god?

    ReplyDelete
  44. I know this to be true because Spaghetti exists.

    Sorry, you have a lot more questions to answer. See the post.



    Do you not see this as slightly circular logic?

    Never claimed it wasn't. The big difference is that the system I go on to build on my presupps does not undermine my presupps. Also, EVERY system is circular when it comes to fundamental axioms.


    you say 95% of the world believes in the same god you do.

    No one said that; it was said that 95% of ppl believe in God/the supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I think you miss the point I make. I likely differ strongly from most Pastafarians in that I make no serious attempt to defend His Noodliness. I appreciate the actual intent of the Church of FSM. In fact, most do. However, in pointing out the analogous nature of argument for the FSM and argument for the divinity of Christ, you also logically point to all of the weak points in your own belief that should be answered before going after any other proposed system.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I likely differ strongly from most Pastafarians in that I make no serious attempt to defend His Noodliness.

    Oh, then I can simply dismiss the FSM as nonsense and move on to try to find an actual worldview. You're not a Pastafarian at all; you're an atheist. Thanks!

    If you don't know the answers that the Christian would give to any of the questions I've raised here, I suggest you read this very blog a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Atheism is a bit harsh. The only reason for my lack of belief in the divine is the lack of evidence for the divine.

    This is the same reason I also do not believe in "the big bang" as a MEANS for the universe to come into existence as it would require the same fundamental flaw in the laws of thermodynamics as creation would, without the convenience of a supernatural explanation to fall back on.

    I think the real issue here is that everyone always tries to shift the burden of proof to the other party, regardless of which two parties argue. Realistically, all groups should be more interested in proving the validity of their own statements than disproving each others.

    However, I think this may be more the point you attempt to make in this case, and to that end, I salute you. I just wish people would make these points in less confrontational manners.

    ReplyDelete
  48. The only reason for my lack of belief in the divine is the lack of evidence for the divine.

    How about evidence that evidence is the best way to discover truth? Got any of that?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well, I trust what can be demonstrably tested over that which can only be taken on faith alone.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Please let me know how the statement "I trust what can be demonstrably tested over that which can only be taken on faith alone" or the statement "that which can be demonstrably tested is preferable over that which can only be taken on faith alone" can be demonstrably tested.

    ReplyDelete
  51. As a personal preference, it needs no proof. That being said, given that only that which CAN be tested is within the currently accepted and understood laws of nature, and that which must be taken on faith alone is not, it is utterly impossible to test the scientific validity of my preference, or, to simplify, I prefer science over supernatural, as one may be understood (and thus tested), and one may not.

    The underlying issue here is the disconnect between science and the supernatural. Until the supernatural is proven (at which point it ceases to be supernatural) it is merely a concept. While I do live my life in a manner consistent with a concept of right and wrong, I do not choose to make a connection from that concept to a higher power.

    Right and wrong are sociological concepts. For right and wrong to be anything other than subjective would make them in some manner testable outside the social application. There can be no objective test for "right" or "wrong" or "good" and "evil" because none of these words have a defining characteristic without such being assigned by a particular group.

    Take, as an example, killing a cow for meat. To some, this is acceptable, to some, sacrilege. To some it is unjust, to some it is the natural order. The only way to test which of these is correct relies upon A: an assumption of judgment for action in this life; and B: a precursor knowledge of who and what the judging party is and judges for.

    Unfortunately, if either exists, those of us that happen to be alive can not know, making them untestable, which proves that morals are either subjective or supernaturally imposed.

    Barring the ID definition of science which allows for Alchemy, Astrology, and Tarot (See Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, Defense Expert Testimony)
    http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_et_al.
    we are unable to submit the supernatural for testing. So if you truly want me to get a tarot deck to determine that my way is better than yours, I certainly can.

    ReplyDelete
  52. oneal,

    You're in way over your head. I suggest withdrawal, rethinking, retraction, reformulation of your beliefs.

    As a personal preference, it needs no proof.

    1) So your earlier statement "I trust what can be demonstrably tested over that which can only be taken on faith alone." is actually untrue. You trust your personal preference, apparently alone.
    2) This renders the search for truth completely superfluous. Which, again, makes your doubts about the God of the Bible totally superfluous. Why even comment here?



    given that only that which CAN be tested is within the currently accepted and understood laws of nature

    How does one test the truth of the statement"given that only that which CAN be tested is within the currently accepted and understood laws of nature" within the laws of nature?
    (Obviously, one can't, so my rhetorical question is meant to illustrate the bankruptcy of what you've expressed so far, sorry to say.)


    I prefer science over supernatural, as one may be understood (and thus tested), and one may not.

    What is your argument that the supernatural may not be tested, and understood?


    Until the supernatural is proven (at which point it ceases to be supernatural) it is merely a concept.

    Until the scientific is proven (at which point it can start to be scientific, but until then merely begs the question) it is merely a concept.


    Right and wrong are sociological concepts.

    So within my society, it's right to believe in the God of the Bible. Am I thus right to do so, to reject the FSM, and justified?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Please respond to the Judge's findings from Kitzmiller v Dover. It's rather relevant to the last portion of your line of inquiry.
    Although you do seem to have a tendency to respond piecemeal, only choosing the parts you have an answer to.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I tend to respond to only those parts that seem to me to be worth it. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but you can always try upgrading your arguments. Plus, there are tons of questions in the original post for you to answer for the FSM, if you get tired.

    As for the judge...
    1) I have little interest in defending ID qua ID.
    2) It's extremely dishonest for someone like you to claim that a judge is an arbiter of truth when you reject, for example, the judgment of the judge in the Scopes Monkey Trial. You don't blv the speech of a judge matters in the long run; who am I to disagree?
    3) The judge demonstrably lifted whole lines of text from the liberal evolutionist amicus curiae brief. Obviously he can't think for himself; why would I think more of him than he does?

    ReplyDelete
  55. all i have to say is, your god (whom i shall refer to as Sky Bully) fails your own questions far worse than FSM.

    How does the Sky Bully account for the origin of the universe?

    Sky Bully is made of... well, no one knows. magic dust? so please explain exactly how an intangible, totally unprovable entity could make anything, let alone a universe.

    How is the Sky Bully sufficient as a foundation for all reason and intelligibility?
    What is the Sky Bully's relationship to the laws of logic and of mathematics?


    i can name several places in the christian bible that are totally contradictory off the top of my head.

    saved with or without works? (Eph. 2:8-9, Romans 3:20,28 vs James 2:24, Matt. 19:16-21)
    men and women, equal or not? (Gen 1:27 vs Gen 2:18,23)
    make graven images or not? (Ex. 20:4 vs Ex. 25:18)
    should good works be seen? (Matt. 5:16 vs Matt. 6:1-4
    does Sky Bully change his mind? (Mal 3:6, James 1:17 vs Ex. 32:14, Jonah 3:10)

    which leads me neatly to...

    Since the Sky Bully's nature is not timeless, how does it solve the problem of entropy or infinite regress?

    so who made the Sky Bully? if he could always exist, so could the FSM. and he can't be just energy, must have volume as well. E=mc^2

    Why is it that enough questioning of Pastafarians or approximations thereof always leads you back to a clear imitation of the God of the Bible?

    LOL duh it is SATIRE, to prove a point: FSM creating the universe is just as provable (as in not) as Sky Bully doing so. if one is included in an academic textbook, then the other should be as well.

    seriously, did the pirate thing and the whole of the site not give it away?

    There is no serious self-revelation of the Sky Bully. Thus, how can anyone know anything about the Sky Bully?

    so... your big proof relies on a bunch of books written by HUMANS that was supposedly divinely inspired (which is also unprovable).

    using that same logic, i can say that the FSM website and all materials on it are divinely inspired. FSM reveals himself through the website and the words of his followers. prove me wrong.

    Does the Sky Bully provide any foundation for any objective morality?
    Should I believe that the Sky Bully exists? Why?
    Should I hunt down and kill all christians and their children? Why not?
    How do we know unless the Sky Bully provides some overarching prescriptive standard in comparison with which we can determine good/bad and right/wrong value judgments?
    (Yep, same argument as the commonly used one against atheism.)


    back to the christian bible for this one.

    kill or not? (Ex. 20:13 vs Ex. 32:37, Num. 15:36)
    lie or not? (Ex. 20:16 vs I Kings 22:23, II Thess. 2:11)
    steal or not? (Ex. 20:15 vs Ex. 3:22, Luke 19:29-33)
    is Sky Bully all good or part evil? (James 1:13 vs. Is. 45:7, Lam. 3:38)

    part 2 is next...

    ReplyDelete
  56. part 2 of 3...

    What precisely has the Sky Bully done?
    Why is it that the Sky Bully bible is full of man-made drawings and representations of the Sky Bully with nothing else? When this supposed higher being supposedly exists, why is the only "evidence" things that humans have done? What sets the Sky Bully apart from other imaginary deities like the Easter Bunny or the sprite in yonder large oak tree?


    once again you decry the human-only evidence of FSM, yet your only proof is HUMAN-ONLY evidence of the Sky Bully. you talk about what people have done and are willing to do in the name of the Sky Bully. look at the site. people have done a lot of things in FSM's name.

    also, i wouldn't always be too proud of the actions done in the name of Sky Bully. Inquisition, Salem witch trials, Crusades, the Great Schisms...

    Mickey Mouse has a devoted following and centers of worship, and every Presidential election since his creation has had a substantial amount of write-in votes for him. doesn't make him anymore real, though.

    also, FSM is apparently MUCH MUCH better at protecting his followers from harm, considering all the crap that Sky Bully continues to allow to happen to christians.

    Why are the claims made by the Sky Bully "religion" so incoherent?

    for all your talk of the strawman philosophical argument (which, FYI is NOT an essential part of satire), you get it all wrong.
    for half of your post, you make the straw man 'FSM as a real religion'. then you freely admit that it is likely satire, which kinda ruins your earlier arguments.

    Why is the founder of the Sky Bully "religion" so incoherent?

    please look at all of the biblical contradictions i have listed so far. there are tons more but i'm getting sick of reading dangerous lewd fairy tales. i'm not even going to bother proving the lewd thing. open the bible and you have a 30% percent chance of hitting EXPLICIT SEXUAL DESCRIPTIONS.

    Dogma is bad for everyone.

    hey, i like the works of Kevin Smith.
    oh, satire. duh duh duh.

    Which leads me to:

    satire. do you really and truly think that anyone REALLY believes in FSM? if so, i am a solicitor and member of royalty that has a great deal for you for a low low price...

    What is the Sky Bully's answer to the problem of evil?

    christianity conveniently places all consequence of evil in the 'afterlife', which is again totally unprovable. also, instantaneous absolution of all sins is certainly convenient as well; allows a person to live however they want and get into 'heaven'. so how many BILLIONS now have gone to hell simply because of simply not hearing about the Sky Bully and his illegitimate son?

    Constantine believed in predestination; one's good works and living a virtuous life is a sort of proof that one is saved. i doubt many current christians want to try to live up to that one.

    Why do so many people believe in the Sky Bully?

    beats me. i hate bullies.

    actually, from experience i know that a lot of it starts with fear mongering at an early age, preying both on self-concern and thoughts of others being in 'hell'. sunday school conveniently skips over the gratuitous violence and explicit sexual passages.

    ReplyDelete
  57. part 3 of 3...

    Does the Sky Bully ensure the continual consistency of observed physical laws, thus ensuring the utility of scientific inquiry and experimentation? The FSM is explicitly said, on the website, to hold the universe together with his noodly appendages, and to have promised that the world will continue as is until pirates loot everything. Atheism labors under the problem of induction, specifically that the patterns observed in the recorded past are in no way certain to continue into the future, even one more second. How does the Sky Bully solve this problem, and how does the christian know?

    once again, please see above for the total inconsistency of the Sky Bully's christian bible.

    If christianity is true, what explanation does it give for the noodly appendage of FSM?
    And why are the arguments FOR the resurrection of Jesus so poor?


    the big proof of illegitimate Sky Bully Jr. is a bunch of books written and collected after the fact. their authorship is deeply in question, and inconsistencies across the gospels really makes the whole story suspect. for more on this, look at:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693&sc=fb&cc=fp

    truth of the matter is, don't try to logically prove something that is based on faith/belief. eventually you always end up at the faith issue, and faith is neither a provable or disprovable thing. you either believe or you don't. i.e. while Sky Bully's existence is totally 'yes' for you; i don't have that faith, so anything based on such assumptions are meaningless to me.

    TL;DR: human created 'proof' of divinity is not proof at all.

    being passionate about one's beliefs is NOT proof of the existence of the focus of one's beliefs.

    faith cannot ultimately be argued logically.

    pirates are awesome, and spaghetti is delicious.

    ReplyDelete
  58. hi Henry,

    Nice of you to give it the ol' college try too!

    Sky Bully)

    Please provide the moral framework by which you can objectively identify bullies and how you can identify bullying as a morally objectionable behavior.


    Sky Bully is made of... well, no one knows. magic dust?

    Christians know; just ask. He's Spirit, not made of matter or energy at all. Unlike FSM.


    so please explain exactly how an intangible, totally unprovable entity could make anything

    He is supernatural and created all of Nature, so obviously He can work on it.


    saved with or without works? (Eph. 2:8-9, Romans 3:20,28 vs James 2:24, Matt. 19:16-21)

    You are really ignorant, aren't you? Sorry to hear that.
    Start here. Go here next. And stop repeating bad Roman arguments to a Reformed guy.


    men and women, equal or not?

    The Bible verses cited don't speak to inequality at all. Maybe you meant something else?


    make graven images or not?

    The less imaginative among us might conclude that Ex 25 might not fall under the category "graven image". Hmmm...


    should good works be seen?

    SOME should. Did Jesus ever say "all" in those psgs?


    does Sky Bully change his mind? (

    Does Henry allow for the possibility of anthropomorphism in literature?


    so who made the Sky Bully?

    Nobody, Dick Dawk. He's eternally been God. If we blvd He started somewhere, we'd have the same problem of infinite regress that atheists do.


    if he could always exist, so could the FSM.

    The FSM is made of Spirit? So it's not spaghetti?
    You need to explain this better.


    LOL duh it is SATIRE, to prove a point:

    So why defend it as real? You didn't read all the post, did you?


    did the pirate thing and the whole of the site not give it away?

    Did my addressing it at least twice in the post not give away my opinion?


    your big proof relies on a bunch of books written by HUMANS that was supposedly divinely inspired (

    Far from it, but I note that apparently FSM can't even rely on that much!


    FSM reveals himself through the website and the words of his followers. prove me wrong.

    I just did, in the post. Maybe you missed it; read it again.
    Prove the impossibility of the contrary - that's my standard argument for the God of the Bible. Go for it!


    kill or not?

    The real question is MURDER or not.
    But you're too shallow to realise that, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  59. lie or not?

    Oh, is 1 Thess 2 addressing PEOPLE, saying it's OK for them to lie?
    Seriously, what did you do, go running to the Skeptics Annotated Bible or some other lame source like evilbible.com? You're not even intelligently addressing the point.


    steal or not?

    Oh, Jesus stole the donkey in Lk 19? Please quote the exact verse.


    is Sky Bully all good or part evil?

    Please explain the difference between BEING good and DOING good, and BEING evil and DOING evil (so that good may result). That should be interesting.


    yet your only proof is HUMAN-ONLY evidence of the Sky Bully

    Prove your claim.


    people have done a lot of things in FSM's name.

    Now prove the FSM was behind all of them, or any of them.


    i wouldn't always be too proud of the actions done in the name of Sky Bully. Inquisition, Salem witch trials, Crusades, the Great Schisms...

    Which pale in comparison and body count to the atheist crusades of the 20th century.
    You really want to ask me to defend Rome? You apparently know little about Reformed ppl.
    So, to you, my position is irrational b/c a PERVERSION of it did something you think is morally objectionable? Could you please elaborate on how that argument works?


    all the crap that Sky Bully continues to allow to happen to christians.

    Please list the biblical promises that God will guard His people from physical problems and danger. Please make sure to include all relevant exegesis so I can know that you're not just talking out of the air.


    then you freely admit that it is likely satire, which kinda ruins your earlier arguments.

    No, it ruins YOUR entire argument. Don't be so foolish. I obviously don't take the FSM seriously. I said so in my post.


    you have a 30% percent chance of hitting EXPLICIT SEXUAL DESCRIPTIONS.

    1) Please describe how this responds to the charge that the founder of the Sky Bully "religion" is so incoherent. Seems to me totally irrelevant.
    2) I'm sorry it upset you. Does your mommy know you're on the Net past your bedtime?
    3) Please give me a way I can know that sexually explicit material is objectively morally wrong.


    christianity conveniently places all consequence of evil in the 'afterlife'

    That is totally false. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about now. Start with Romans 1:18-27 and let me know how all the evil there is reserved to be punished in the afterlife.


    so how many BILLIONS now have gone to hell simply because of simply not hearing about the Sky Bully and his illegitimate son?

    Please give me a way I can know that ppl going to Hell is objectively morally wrong.



    from experience i know that a lot of it starts with fear mongering at an early age, preying both on self-concern and thoughts of others being in 'hell'.

    1) Please describe how this responds to the charge that the founder of the Sky Bully "religion" is so incoherent. Seems to me totally irrelevant.
    2) It's a double-edged sword. From experience I know that a lot of atheism starts with fear mongering at an early age, preying both on self-concern and thoughts of others being in intellectual wasteland. And fear of being kept out of academia by the small-minded like you.

    So, in summary, you have succeeded in totally misunderstanding the Bible and Christianity, and have emasculated your own arguments by agreeing too quickly that FSM is not a real worldview. You have provided zero support for your own ideas. In short, you've done nothing. I suggest you start working on redeeming yourself immediately.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  60. guess what, i don't believe in either Sky Bully or FSM (i'm a bit nihilist really, and study Taoism). to be so pompous about philosophy, you don't seem to notice the blatant playing of 'devil's advocate'. BTW, the Sky Bully thing is just from a quote from Joss Whedon. i thought it funny and fitting as to how i feel about christianity and how i have been treated poorly by some recognized 'good christians'.

    i can say that FSM is made of 'spirit' and created all of nature. that is just as indefensible as your statement. PROVE ME WRONG!!!

    do you have some instrument that measures 'spirit'? i guess i paid too much for my professional research multimeter, it doesn't have that setting.

    the burden of proof in on you and yours. you say 'far from it', but give NO 'proof' that was not created by humans. just as you say that Sky Bully is evident in history, i could say that FSM is evident in the website and actions by the followers.

    prove to me, using pure logic without faith based assumptions, as well as empirically provable tangible and physical fact, that Sky Bully and his illegitimate son actually exist and they are deities. and PLEASE give me incontrovertible evidence that Sky Bully was behind ANYTHING done in his name.

    also, prove the impossibility of the contrary for Sky Bully. i'm waiting.

    are we really going to go into semantics here, when i sincerely doubt that you are fluent in Aramaic, Greek, Latin and the other languages of the christian bible. i'm only knowledgeable in Latin, but i don't have to defend the bible, either.

    so there is admittance of belief of inequality. those are the reasons why women continue to face prejudice to this day. Elizabeth Cady Stanton believed that christanity and other misogynist dogmatic religions have done more harm to women than anything.

    i have to say, any belief system that would harm the mind of a child, is no system worth believing. if you think graphic sex, murder (King David MURDERED a man to get that man's wife, Bathsheba), genocide and other terrible acts are OK to describe to a 5 year old, i am not letting you near my kids, nor any that i have taught over the years.

    the fact that billions of people simply were not in the right place to hear about Sky Bully and Co. is enough for damnation? i personally think that is grossly unfair.

    i'm the small minded one? really? i'm not the one that somehow believes that i am a part of a select country club and everyone that doesn't agree is going to hell. at most, i may think that someone is a complete jerk THAT IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION. big difference from believing that everyone that disagrees with me undergoes eternal torment in the afterlife. i think the fear of being banned from academia really pales in comparison to ETERNAL TORMENT.

    for the record, no one i have ever known or heard about has ever banned anyone from academia for faith. i know a lot of academics with publicly known and respected deep faith in christianity and other religions; they just aren't jerks about it. on the other hand, i have witnessed and experienced bigotry, racism and violence for not being a christian. i am not exaggerating.

    did you not read the last part of my 3rd post? due to the fact that faith has no empirically measurable proof, we eventually get down to either believing or not. and i do not. my friends with faith acknowledge this impasse, and provide much better debating material.

    keep damning me to hell and calling me ignorant. i will continue to respect your opinions and your right to your opinions nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Henry,

    No rebuttal to what I offered in my prev comment. Duly noted. Maybe you're satire like the FSM is, w/o any substance to you?

    to be so pompous about philosophy, you don't seem to notice the blatant playing of 'devil's advocate'.

    Says the guy who couldn't tell that the entire post was an exposure of what I knew was a satirical position.


    i feel about christianity and how i have been treated poorly by some recognized 'good christians'.

    I've been treated bad by all kinds of ppl, including atheists and Pastafarians. I suppose you won't mind if I make up some pejorative that fits their position not at all, right? Like calling Pastafarians Holocaust-deniers?



    i can say that FSM is made of 'spirit' and created all of nature. that is just as indefensible as your statement. PROVE ME WRONG!!!

    You're just proving ME right. Suddenly your position shifts away from the FSM as material entity to an only-spiritual one. Why?


    do you have some instrument that measures 'spirit'?

    No. Do you have some instrument that measures 'evidence' or 'burden of proof'?


    just as you say that Sky Bully is evident in history, i could say that FSM is evident in the website and actions by the followers.

    Prove it. Name those actions. Be specific.


    prove the impossibility of the contrary for Sky Bully. i'm waiting.

    Here you go. Now, I'd love to hear some similar reasoning from the Pastafarian. Oh wait, you can't - it's satire.


    when i sincerely doubt that you are fluent in Aramaic, Greek, Latin and the other languages of the christian bible.

    And that's relevant how?



    Elizabeth Cady Stanton believed that christanity and other misogynist dogmatic religions have done more harm to women than anything.

    And what are her arguments?



    i have to say, any belief system that would harm the mind of a child, is no system worth believing.

    Now define "harm" and "worth". Be specific and let me know how you know that this statement is true. What evidence can you bring fwd that harming children = morally wrong?



    the fact that billions of people simply were not in the right place to hear about Sky Bully and Co. is enough for damnation?

    Why exactly should I or anyone else care what you think is fair? Be specific.

    ReplyDelete
  62. i am a part of a select country club

    You apparently don't understand the nature of grace as unmerited favor. I deserve Hell, I am a worm. God has chosen to save me b/c He wanted to, for reasons I'll probably never understand. That doesn't make you right.


    i think the fear of being banned from academia really pales in comparison to ETERNAL TORMENT.

    No recognition shown of the diff between a HUMAN banning another HUMAN from academia based on their dislike for their worldview and God's banning a human from Heaven based on sin. They're not really analogous.


    banned anyone from academia

    Watch "Expelled".


    due to the fact that faith has no empirically measurable proof, we eventually get down to either believing or not.

    So are you admitting that you have faith that b/c empirical measurement is the standard of truth, since your position is not empirically measurable, you're into blind faith?



    keep damning me to hell and calling me ignorant. i

    Until you can give me an objective reason why I shouldn't and until you show any understanding of the position I've been offering, you give me no reason to do anythg but call you ignorant and to RECOGNISE that you're headed to Hell (which is far diff than "condemning" you to Hell - I have no such authority). This kind of rhetoric from you shows that you're quite emotional about this whole thing, which makes me doubt your objectivity alot, I have to say.


    your right

    Whence are rights derived? How do you know everyone has them?

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  63. blah blah dodge blah blah

    SHOW ME PHYSICAL, EMPIRICAL, INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF OF SKY BULLY!!!

    i don't have to prove anything, because i don't believe in fairy tales. the burden of proof is still on you.

    you can keep dodging the issue with semantics and continue to insult me and damn me to hell, but it still doesn't prove that Sky Bully exists.

    ReplyDelete
  64. SHOW ME PHYSICAL, EMPIRICAL, INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF OF EVIDENCE!!!!

    i don't have to prove anything, because i don't believe in fairy tales. the burden of proof is still on you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. proof of evidence? you mean you want me to prove that physical evidence is a proof?

    LOLWUT

    i measure an apple with a ruler. i then drop the apple. it falls onto a scale i have on the floor. i then wash it and eat it. i know the apple exists because it can be physically observed, measured, etc. it is tasty, too.

    try that with Sky Bully.

    ReplyDelete
  66. i know the apple exists because it can be physically observed, measured, etc.

    Prove it. Give evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  67. you seriously want me to prove apples exist? really?

    done and done. had to install my new webcam first.

    http://picasaweb.google.com/102594872247151757413/AppleProof#

    YUM!!!

    you can stay tied up on semantics and keep deflecting the fact that you can't prove Sky Bully exists.

    i am going to enjoy my apple. it is delicious. then i am going to go back outside and continue playing volleyball with my mates.

    ReplyDelete
  68. No, I want you to prove YOUR apple exists, first of all.
    Then I want you to provide evidence for your implicitly-held position that seeing is what is required, or that sensory input is required, to know the truth. Provide evidence.

    ...

    What I'm trying to get you to see is that your standard for truth and knowing is badly, badly flawed. You need Jesus to tell you about the outside world and the extent of the reliability of your senses and your cognitive faculties. That's what I mean about the impossibility of the contrary. Atheism, Taoism, and FSM can't provide that kind of information. Jesus can. That's one reason I'm a Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Henry wrote: i measure an apple with a ruler. i then drop the apple. it falls onto a scale i have on the floor. i then wash it and eat it. i know the apple exists because it can be physically observed, measured, etc. it is tasty, too.

    try that with Sky Bully.


    I assume that S.B. is your blasphemous label for God. God will measure you, not you Him. He's not an apple, he's your creator. He's the reason you exist, and you wiht your physically observed and measured qualities testify to his existence despite your (spiritual) desire to the contrary.

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  70. I put the FSM and the Invisible Pink Unicorns to the natural theology test--they failed.

    http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/flying-spaghetti-monster-invisible-pink-unicorns-et-al-part-1-4

    ReplyDelete
  71. I read the blog posting and all the comments and would like to contribute, but I don't think that anybody here is actually listening. Everybody seems to be too busy attacking each other personally, and that makes me sad.

    Don't you realize that God and the FSM are illusions fostered in your mind by the Lord Khrishna?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Redhat,

    I'd be interested in seeing the argument for that. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  73. That you feel you need proof is an illusion fostered in your mind by the Lord Khrishna? Any proof would be illusions fostered in our mind by the Lord Khrishna?

    ReplyDelete
  74. 1) You'll note I didn't use mere naked assertions in the post.

    2) That you feel you the need to assert anything about Lord Krishna is an illusion fostered in your mind by Jesus.
    Ie, stay away from double-edged arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  75. It is not clear that Jesus is merely an incarnation of the Lord Khrishna? And as such is an illusion fostered in your mind by the Lord Khrishna?

    You only see what Khrishna want you to see.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Just a couple of thoughts.

    FSM, as I understand the satirical construct, was originally thought up to criticize creationism, not theism. In fact, I could imagine the FSM explanation for life on our planet to be compatible with God's existence. God creates FSM, FSM creates us. The question is, should we teach this "theory" in science classes, just because some people put it forth as an alternative? There were many supporters on the side of "teaching the controversy" or "presenting both sides". However, when you're not restricted to methodological naturalism, there aren't just two sides. There are an infinite number of untestable ideas, including ridiculous things like FSM. The FSM meme appears to have taken on a life of its own as a way to criticize religion, but I think that the criticism of teaching untestable alternatives to evolution was the original motivation.

    My other point is the following. Yes, defenders of FSM use the same methods as Christian apologists to dodge criticism, such as the claims that FSM is immaterial and must be believed before the evidence can be experienced. However, you should also consider all of the things that are *not* similar between FSM and Christianity. FSM does not turn into his own son and sacrifice himself to himself in bronze age middle east. FSM doesn't think men who have sex with men deserve eternal torment in an afterlife. Etc. So, when comparing FSM and the Christian God, it's probably only fair that you consider these differences, which are numerous, alongside the similarities.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Thanks for your thoughts, Greg!

    I could imagine the FSM explanation for life on our planet to be compatible with God's existence. God creates FSM, FSM creates us.

    But that's not what the Pastafarians say. I've never talked to one nor have I seen anythg on Venganza.org to suggest that they're interested in harmonising the 2.
    Besides, it's not as if the Bible would support such an idea.


    The question is, should we teach this "theory" in science classes, just because some people put it forth as an alternative?

    Clearly not, since it's not true. Call me crazy, but I think it'd be great if our education system educated people on true things.


    There are an infinite number of untestable ideas

    Science itself is not testable.
    The principle of falsification is not testable or falsifiable. This is a naturalistic bugaboo - test it with logic! It shouldn't surprise me that naturalists don't think of testing stuff logically, since that's not their forté.


    defenders of FSM use the same methods as Christian apologists to dodge criticism,

    In what way would you say that this blog or my own "dodge criticism"? Are you not a fan of logical analysis either?


    FSM does not turn into his own son and sacrifice himself to himself in bronze age middle east.

    Very true. This would seem to militate against your first statement above, though.


    FSM doesn't think men who have sex with men deserve eternal torment in an afterlife.

    Well, just like most everythg else about FSM, I'd have to ask how you know that.


    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete