FSM is about an alternative view on religion and an alternative take on what we currently believe to be how god works.

Yes its a parody of religion, but its not atheist in anyway, shape or form. Its just wannabes think if you take make fun out of religion its the same as not believing in God(s).

It saddens me people take it that way. Hating or disliking religion doesn't directly make you an atheist.

 

If you read the book its actually midgets which are the chosen ones (made smaller people of his touch being so great on them) and more holy then pirates. Pirates are just the original followers, but midgets are the chosen ones.

 

I'm honestly surprised that it took you 5 years to find that article or something similar. I've seen those points on numerous magazines, TV shows, films and books.

 

FSM is not about that, it's about what you want it to be. I want it to be a joke of religion, and a counter point to the existance of God (to me it's as legitimate to exist as any other God).

 

Even if that wasn't true, FSM is not a replacement to religion, I doubt anyone really takes it that way.

Also, are you trying to tell me what I think :S?

 

As for you comment that hating religion is not the same as not believing in God. that's true. And I don't remember claiming otherwise. I never said I'm an atheist because I'm a Pastafarianist, or because I hate religion (I actualy don't hate religion, I just think it's pointless and thus hate some of it's outcome), I said I'm an atheist because I am - I don't believe in any God in any form whatsoever.

 

 

As for your 5 year comment, if you read more carefuly what I said you'd find out I was trying not to find an article as such. I was trying to reach my own conclusions and not have anyone's opinions affect me.

The whole theory of evolution and spontaneous generation is laughable.

 

That is all. :D

Please don't be one of those people who thinks that a quote from Darwin, saying it's "just a theory", and bacterial flagellum completely disprove evolution.

Evolution has a monumental amount of evidence. Were it not for religions saying that it is untrue, I think people would actually accept the theory. And please don't say you don't believe it only because you cannot see the process actually occurring. We can't see atoms, or protons, or electrons, but everyone would take you as an idiot if you said the atomic theory was all lies.

 

Back on topic, I personally don't believe in a god. But I do go to church with my family, and participate in the services. I think religions are a good thing, they give people hope, and provide moral guidelines. The only time I have a problem with religion is when it impedes science, spreads hate or prejudice, or requires suicide. Other than that, it's cool with me.

I rly hate religion topics. Atheists think that theists are essentially mental patients. Theists think atheists are going to hell.

 

 

/thread

 

All these threads rly boil down to this:

 

Atheists say we have no proof God exists.

Theists say you're not looking hard enough.

 

One question to all those who believe in Evolution:

A couple months ago, the majority of posters called the conservatives here ignorant, and stupid, because we didn't believe in GlobalWarming. Now that its been proven that was all fraud... All your scientists were wrong, so do you still hold the steadfast belief that after mountains of evidence, they're always right?

 

First of all, it hasn't been proven that global warming is all a fraud. The very proposition is absurd. Sure, there have been some mistakes along the way, but mistakes are weeded out and corrected. This is the nature of science.

 

In over 200 years of research, every single bit of evidence we have in the biological, geological and paleontological sciences supports evolution. But you might argue that dispite all this, in science we can't ever know things with 100% absolute certainty. This is true, but would you stop taking antibiotics because of the possibility that microbiology is wrong? Of course not. There's so much evidence supporting the fact that antibiotics work, so people accept that they do and move on with their lives. It's only when science contradicts creation myths and other religious dogma that people question it. Why not just look at the evidence - the real facts that we know and judge for yourself whether they support evolution? Just flat out claiming that scientists are wrong wont get you far.

 

 

Thats not what I meant. I meant do you think its possible that scientists are changing the data is many other such controversial topics? Such as Evolution for example? Global warming may have been isolated, and it may not have.

Say what you like about evolution, but the sides only matter as far as knowledge goes. It isn't exactly practical as physics or a language is (are?). But damn is it interesting... :lol:

 

 

I actualy think that's where the problem comes from.

Human-beings do not know where that particle came from, just as much as the ancient greeks didn't know where lightining came from, or how the sun works. So? We don't know how lightining is created... Must be some sort of God for it!

Exactly. But just because that's why gods are created doesn't fully eliminate the possibility of one.

 

Same works here, we don't know what caused the big bang, must be God then!

And even if we did know we'd find some other hole to fill with a God.

 

Humans can't stand not knowing something, and when they can't know something, they invent an explenation.

This is the entire premise of science, to get the explanations. Except that inventing an explanation is much more rigorous. Even then the blanks are filled to make things easier. Such as how we don't know how the universe began so we use the big bang (Ironically, an idea proposed by a Christian monk): It could be something completely different for all we know. It's human nature to invent explanations for what we don't know. Nobody is immune to that, not Christians, scientists, etc. And until we do know, the explanation is an acceptable placeholder.

I'm suggesting that knowing everything is impossible for the reasons the example of the infinite circle of creators is. And even if we did know everything we would still want to know why.

 

 

I'm not saying it's not possible that someone created that particle, I'm saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions. If any God exists, who said it's the Christian one? The Jewish one? Muslim? Hindi?

Hence my theistic agnosticism. I'm not going to pick a side because I don't think any side has all the answers. I just figure that no matter how far we look the possibility is always there.

I hope you understand what I'm saying here, any religions revolving Gods today are a result of the human mind just as much as FSM or fairies and unicorns. If that's the case, anyone can pick on believing in a divine deity or not, and not necessarily follow a religion.

Which is what I've been doing :grin: .

All religion is is putting morals behind the visage of god(s). Sometimes that works well, sometimes not. I attribute the failings to the people, not to the god that they claim to serve.

 

Also, if some God did create that particle, what makes you think it's the same one who supposedly helped us find a great career or win the lottery?

I was just using the big bang as an example. If it's the same god, so be it. Personally, I'd think we have the illusion of free will and individuality. Not like we'd know if things were fated anyway...

What I'm asking here is, who could possibly gurantee God still exists (if he ever did), or that he still is with us?

Nobody, which is what makes it a belief and not a fact. Belief is a universal concept, the religious belief is that there is one, the atheistic belief is that there isn't, the agnostic belief is that we don't know, but until anyone finds proof for any side they remain beliefs.

This is the entire premise of science, to get the explanations. Except that inventing an explanation is much more rigorous. Even then the blanks are filled to make things easier. Such as how we don't know how the universe began so we use the big bang (Ironically, an idea proposed by a Christian monk): It could be something completely different for all we know. It's human nature to invent explanations for what we don't know. Nobody is immune to that, not Christians, scientists, etc. And until we do know, the explanation is an acceptable placeholder.

I'm suggesting that knowing everything is impossible for the reasons the example of the infinite circle of creators is. And even if we did know everything we would still want to know why.

 

Exactly. I don't see the problem with filling in gaps with the most reasonable answer - so long as you are willing to change your beliefs if new evidence arises.

Actually, even though I believe in God, I TOTALLY agree with his first argument. I always facepalm when people say that the earth is suited for human life. Humans could have been designed to breathe methane and live in -20 degree weather.

 

And to say all the evidence supports evolution is bollock.

Actually, even though I believe in God, I TOTALLY agree with his first argument. I always facepalm when people say that the earth is suited for human life. Humans could have been designed to breathe methane and live in -20 degree weather.

 

And to say all the evidence supports evolution is bollock.

 

I agree, I don't have a problem imagining a race that live in lava like our fish live in water. I don't believe in Creation, but I don't support beginning of time evolution (I agree with more modern evolution though).

One argument that I liked the most was the rock analogy "Can God create a rock he can't lift?"

 

Also earlier someone said about how Atheists think the Bible is a lie but all the documents we read are true. Here I have to agree I think at least for the sake of argument it is absurd to assume our sources are all perfect.

 

Also this person said, God did show himself as Jesus. Why can't he do so again? I know Christian's believe he is coming again but how will you know? I have often struggled with religion and I know for a fact that if God appeared to me and proved himself to be a God I would give up all my dreams and serve said deity till my deathbed.

 

Also in relation to that monkey experiment, I see this as an attempt to disprove evolution, consider this he used what 6 monkeys? There are 6 billion people in the world today, and we don't know how long the universe has existed, so really in my opinion this test proves nothing except that it would take a long long time..... which is exactly what evolution says!!!

 

To summarize, in my opinion religions originated to explain the unexplainable, as our knowledge expands "God" shrinks.

Thats not what I meant. I meant do you think its possible that scientists are changing the data is many other such controversial topics? Such as Evolution for example? Global warming may have been isolated, and it may not have.

You're blaming scientists? Look, it's almost impossible to publish something that is wrong. Peer-review will weed out any cheaters. Even one of the most famous psychologists, Cybil Burt, was caught to have fudged data and his theories were thrown in the garbage (although after his lifetime). It's not like Darwin published his book and everyone accepted it with open arms - he spent the rest of his life defending it. Generations of physicists tried proving Einstein wrong but all his data and theories were solid, they would not have been accepted otherwise.

 

It would be naive of me to believe peer-review is the perfect failsafe to human mistakes - there will always be problems and cracks in the system. But to go out and attacking such greatly funded and studied things like global warming's effects and evolution based on the scientists work is wrong. If anyone is to blame for overhyping global warming, its the media. There may be an academic scientist or two who blabs false theories to the media but they are always frowned upon for their want of public fame. University scientists/professors (pretty much all those who advocate evolution & global warming) do not have a secret plot to control society by publishing bad data. That's just not how academia works. On the other hand, oil companies have their own scientists with more shaky moral foundations that don't mind being public about their data and formulated theories without any sort of peer review and the public just gobbles it up.

^^ Umm, ok see how far that gets you. And it wasn't just one or two scientists, good grief man don't be so naive. (no offence) The main global warming scientist tried to kill himself lmao.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

Say what you like about evolution, but the sides only matter as far as knowledge goes. It isn't exactly practical as physics or a language is (are?). But damn is it interesting... :lol:

 

1)

I actualy think that's where the problem comes from.

Human-beings do not know where that particle came from, just as much as the ancient greeks didn't know where lightining came from, or how the sun works. So? We don't know how lightining is created... Must be some sort of God for it!

Exactly. But just because that's why gods are created doesn't fully eliminate the possibility of one.

2)

Same works here, we don't know what caused the big bang, must be God then!

And even if we did know we'd find some other hole to fill with a God.

3)

Humans can't stand not knowing something, and when they can't know something, they invent an explenation.

This is the entire premise of science, to get the explanations. Except that inventing an explanation is much more rigorous. Even then the blanks are filled to make things easier. Such as how we don't know how the universe began so we use the big bang (Ironically, an idea proposed by a Christian monk): It could be something completely different for all we know. It's human nature to invent explanations for what we don't know. Nobody is immune to that, not Christians, scientists, etc. And until we do know, the explanation is an acceptable placeholder.

I'm suggesting that knowing everything is impossible for the reasons the example of the infinite circle of creators is. And even if we did know everything we would still want to know why.

 

4)

I'm not saying it's not possible that someone created that particle, I'm saying we shouldn't jump to conclusions. If any God exists, who said it's the Christian one? The Jewish one? Muslim? Hindi?

Hence my theistic agnosticism. I'm not going to pick a side because I don't think any side has all the answers. I just figure that no matter how far we look the possibility is always there.

I hope you understand what I'm saying here, any religions revolving Gods today are a result of the human mind just as much as FSM or fairies and unicorns. If that's the case, anyone can pick on believing in a divine deity or not, and not necessarily follow a religion.

Which is what I've been doing :grin: .

All religion is is putting morals behind the visage of god(s). Sometimes that works well, sometimes not. I attribute the failings to the people, not to the god that they claim to serve.

5)

Also, if some God did create that particle, what makes you think it's the same one who supposedly helped us find a great career or win the lottery?

I was just using the big bang as an example. If it's the same god, so be it. Personally, I'd think we have the illusion of free will and individuality. Not like we'd know if things were fated anyway...

What I'm asking here is, who could possibly gurantee God still exists (if he ever did), or that he still is with us?

Nobody, which is what makes it a belief and not a fact. Belief is a universal concept, the religious belief is that there is one, the atheistic belief is that there isn't, the agnostic belief is that we don't know, but until anyone finds proof for any side they remain beliefs.

 

1) Of course it doesn't. but it neither means that there is a God. Many religous people take our mere existance as a proof God exists, and that's wrong.

 

2) You didn't get my point here. You're right about what you said, but that only further proves the blindness of religion.

Religion will do anything to prove itself correct even if (hypotheticaly) someone found a solid proof that God couldn't possibly exist. That's also wrong.

 

3) I never said I take the big bang as guranteed. I only used it as an example.

Whether it be scientists or anyone religous, mankind can't accept not knowing something. Scientists may be wrong, but their advantages are that: A. If something is proved wrong no one will try to cover up for it (unless, of course, the disprovement itself is wrong), and B. Scientists don't just throw theories in the air, they always back them up somehow, unlike religion, which just says it's there.

 

4) Exactly, nothing else to add. :P

 

5) See #4.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

 

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational.

 

The atheist-theist discussion isn't only about evolution. It basicly is only about God, when evolution is used by atheists to prove themselves correct, and theists just say that's not true.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

Because it isn't about compromise, it's about finding out what really happened.

Even if that wasn't true, FSM is not a replacement to religion, I doubt anyone really takes it that way.

I'm a Pastafarianist - I belong to the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. R'amen.

Do I smell irony?

 

FSM is not about that, it's about what you want it to be. I want it to be a joke of religion, and a counter point to the existance of God (to me it's as legitimate to exist as any other God).

Well I want to believe the christian bible is about pokemon who play cards with digimon and never to anything bad. What I want it to be about is not the same as the original intent.

 

Hell I can use a CD as a coaster, but does that mean thats the whole reason we have CD's. At heart its still a data storage medium.

 

What ever you want to call it FSM is an alternative look at a deity based religion.

By saying your a Pastafarian and you belong to it a religion and then saying your an atheist is the same as me claiming to be a Christian and an atheist, but its ok because I believe the bible has nothing to do with God and is a recipe book for mac + cheese.

 

If you can't see how thats a massive contradiction then damn your more crazy then me.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

 

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational.

 

The atheist-theist discussion isn't only about evolution. It basicly is only about God, when evolution is used by atheists to prove themselves correct, and theists just say that's not true.

 

It's essentially nothing more than a pissing match, with the stakes being who can say "I told you so." Both sides of the argument (read: intelligent sides of the argument, not the less educated bigots...on both sides) have enough common ground where unless you specifically bring up the origins of man there is little to no disagreement.

Even if that wasn't true, FSM is not a replacement to religion, I doubt anyone really takes it that way.

I'm a Pastafarianist - I belong to the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. R'amen.

Do I smell irony?

 

FSM is not about that, it's about what you want it to be. I want it to be a joke of religion, and a counter point to the existance of God (to me it's as legitimate to exist as any other God).

Well I want to believe the christian bible is about pokemon who play cards with digimon and never to anything bad. What I want it to be about is not the same as the original intent.

 

Hell I can use a CD as a coaster, but does that mean thats the whole reason we have CD's. At heart its still a data storage medium.

 

What ever you want to call it FSM is an alternative look at a deity based religion.

By saying your a Pastafarian and you belong to it a religion and then saying your an atheist is the same as me claiming to be a Christian and an atheist, but its ok because I believe the bible has nothing to do with God and is a recipe book for mac + cheese.

 

If you can't see how thats a massive paradox then damn your more crazy then me.

 

 

Lol? What's your problem?

 

 

Pastafarianism is not a real religion, it's a PARODY of religion. Anyone who "follows" FSM is either an atheist, agnostic, undecided, or dumb (you have to be really dumb to belong to Pastafarianism and believe FSM is real, etc).

 

 

 

I believe I've explained myself far enough, it's just that you'd rather ignore that. I did say I'm an atheist, I did say I don't believe in any divine entity, I did say I call myself a Pastafarianist to balance my environment, I did say I see it as a counterpoint to any God, and I did say I also take it as a joke.

 

 

 

As for your comparison to Christianity.... Lol? Pastafarianism is not a real religion, and it shouldn't be taken that way. That's exactly why I said you can take it any way you want. I take it exactly as I say I take it.

If it's the original intent you're talking about- Henderson (the creator of FSM) used it as an example for why not any form of religous creation should be taught as true in public schools, because there's as much proof a God created the universe as there is FSM did. That's the original intent- How is that religous in any way?

 

FSM is not an alternative look at a deity based religion. It's taken by most as a joke, and as an answer to the existence of any God. If a theist would say, for instance, that the world is too complicated to occur on itself, an atheist could say his specific God is as legitimate as FSM, because there's as much proof it exists as there is of his God. Others take it as a form of mockery, but that's where it ends.

 

PASTAFARIANISM IS NOT A REAL RELIGION, AND NOT A REPLACEMENT TO ONE.

 

 

2 last things:

1. Are you trying to make me think I'm not an atheist or something? If I don't believe in any God, I'm automaticly an atheist. That's about it.

2. I'm thinking you just can't admit you were wrong. You started with one comment for which you thought I'd have no answer (for some reason...), and when I gave you a logical answer you flipped and decided to fight for it no matter what.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

 

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational.

 

The atheist-theist discussion isn't only about evolution. It basicly is only about God, when evolution is used by atheists to prove themselves correct, and theists just say that's not true.

 

It's essentially nothing more than a pissing match, with the stakes being who can say "I told you so." Both sides of the argument (read: intelligent sides of the argument, not the less educated bigots...on both sides) have enough common ground where unless you specifically bring up the origins of man there is little to no disagreement.

 

Care to prove that?

Is a parody song not a song? A parody video not a video?

Christianity (or pretty much 99% of religions) was never intentionally a religion, its just a concept or idea people chose to follow or believe in developing into a religion.

 

 

The joke is the fact he creates an alternative view on deity based religion, by creating a deity based religion which is a parody.

He still creates a religion, parody or not its a freaking religion he created.

 

Your signature says I'm a Pastafarianist - I belong to the a deity religion.

This topic and your posts in it say, I'm an atheist - I don't believe in deities.

 

Joke or not its a contradiction.

That has been my point.

 

Its like me having, I hate all x race of people.

Then making a topic, there should be no racism in the world.

 

Joke or not its a freaking contradiction.

 

I don't give a damn if your atheist or not, but by having a signature which says I follow a deity religion then make a topic about how deities don't/can't exist, there's a lot of irony right there.

It just really bugs me that you started a topic about your atheist points and yet at the same time your posts all have a theist comment in the signature.

 

1. I'm telling you to be extremely careful on how you phrase things and that something you may see as a joke directly contradicts any points you try to pass.

2. If I was wrong I've have no trouble is saying it. But if you want me to say hey its ok to have a theist signature while posting how atheist you are, I was completely wrong there's no contradiction there. Thats about as close as your going to get.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

 

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational.

Walka's example of God being a life catalyst but not an everyday life controller is Deism, as opposed to theism. The differences between both are apparent when you read old studies about human nature. Before, when God was thought to control everything (Revelation dominates reason), human behaviour was described as "should we be doing this". With the rise of deism, human behaviour was just described (Reason over revelation).

 

Of course they can work together: in both examples your get the same results. It's just a different kind on thinking.

Actualy, a parody on horror movies sure is a movie, but it isn't a horror movie. Just like Pastafarianism is an ideology just like any other religion is an ideology, but it isn't a religion.

 

 

According to Wikipedia,- "Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist."

I perfectly fit both to the narrow and the "broadly defined" definitions.

 

 

Even if you do define Pastafarianism as a religion, I can still be defined as an atheist and as a Pastafarianist at the same time, because, as I had already mentioned twice throughout our discussion, I don't believe in any divine entity.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

 

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational.

Walka's example of God being a life catalyst but not an everyday life controller is Deism, as opposed to theism. The differences between both are apparent when you read old studies about human nature. Before, when God was thought to control everything (Revelation dominates reason), human behaviour was described as "should we be doing this". With the rise of deism, human behaviour was just described (Reason over revelation).

 

Of course they can work together: in both examples your get the same results. It's just a different kind on thinking.

 

Regardless of that, can you see atheists and a theist agree about the existence of God? If they ever do, then one of them had converted to the other side. By working together, I meant their definitions, when brought up, collide.

one thing in these threads annoy me- who said that religion and atheism cant work together at all. maybe cod created a bunch of primal lifeforms and then they changed from there?

see, everyone can be happy!

 

They contradict each other from their bases. We can and do live together, we don't have much choice, but working together is irrational.

 

The atheist-theist discussion isn't only about evolution. It basicly is only about God, when evolution is used by atheists to prove themselves correct, and theists just say that's not true.

 

It's essentially nothing more than a pissing match, with the stakes being who can say "I told you so." Both sides of the argument (read: intelligent sides of the argument, not the less educated bigots...on both sides) have enough common ground where unless you specifically bring up the origins of man there is little to no disagreement.

 

Um -- how many atheists have you actually met? :unsure:

Is a parody song not a song? A parody video not a video?

Christianity (or pretty much 99% of religions) was never intentionally a religion, its just a concept or idea people chose to follow or believe in developing into a religion.

 

 

The joke is the fact he creates an alternative view on deity based religion, by creating a deity based religion which is a parody.

He still creates a religion, parody or not its a freaking religion he created.

 

Your signature says I'm a Pastafarianist - I belong to the a deity religion.

This topic and your posts in it say, I'm an atheist - I don't believe in deities.

 

Joke or not its a contradiction.

That has been my point.

 

Its like me having, I hate all x race of people.

Then making a topic, there should be no racism in the world.

 

Joke or not its a freaking contradiction.

 

I don't give a damn if your atheist or not, but by having a signature which says I follow a deity religion then make a topic about how deities don't/can't exist, there's a lot of irony right there.

It just really bugs me that you started a topic about your atheist points and yet at the same time your posts all have a theist comment in the signature.

 

1. I'm telling you to be extremely careful on how you phrase things and that something you may see as a joke directly contradicts any points you try to pass.

2. If I was wrong I've have no trouble is saying it. But if you want me to say hey its ok to have a theist signature while posting how atheist you are, I was completely wrong there's no contradiction there. Thats about as close as your going to get.

 

A Christian having that in their signature would be ironic, but an atheist having that is fitting. The reason she has it in her signature is to illustrate a point of how ridiculous religion sounds - not because she actually believes a spaghetti god. You keep saying that you understand what a parody is but your posts tell us otherwise.

Yeah, um...Joe...you're making WAAAAYYYYY too big of a deal out of Romy's signature. Like seriously, way too big.