religion

[Myweponsg00d]

Well, then we get into the historical accuracy of the bible, which is an interesting enough topic in itself.

 

What do you mean? You mean the Bible, because it exists, can be seen as evidence for God? There are also writings about the FSM...

[obfuscator]

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.

[Dheginsea]

I do not believe there is substantial enough evidence of devine intervention for me to personally believe a god exists, but I do not deny how other people's lives have been enriched as a result of this belief, however fallacious I personally think that belief is.

 

So long as religious belief doesn't infringe on my rights, each to their own.

 

I partially agree with you. One question though..

 

Were do those rights come from if not (for this example) God? Just some food for thought.

 

I would argue that those rights come from human ideals.

[Myweponsg00d]

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.

 

How do we know that the writings of the FSM are false? All we know is that somebody wrote them.

 

Which is the same thing that is true about the Bible.

[obfuscator]

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.

 

How do we know that the writings of the FSM are false? All we know is that somebody wrote them.

 

Which is the same thing that is true about the Bible.

Because it's well documented that they were written as a parody. Don't be ridiculous.

 

If the bible and FSM truly had equal proof of exactly who by and for what they were written Christianity would be nonexistent.

[Myweponsg00d]

If the bible is true it certainly proves God exists.

 

Likewise, if the FSM bible was true, it would prove the FSM exists - except we know for a fact the FSM bible is false.

 

How do we know that the writings of the FSM are false? All we know is that somebody wrote them.

 

Which is the same thing that is true about the Bible.

Because it's well documented that they were written as a parody. Don't be ridiculous.

 

If the bible and FSM truly had equal proof of exactly who by and for what they were written Christianity would be nonexistent.

 

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

 

Also, the Bible comes from a time where there were less people keeping accurate historical records, and these records are more likely to have been lost, so that means that the lack of record makes the Bible MORE likely?

[sephiroth_king]

I didn't even know this thread was still alive. The last I saw of it was...a month ago?

 

Because it's well documented that they were written as a parody. Don't be ridiculous.

 

I do agree with you on this statement alone, simply because it was spontaneously created for the sole purpose of protesting against the very fabric of Religion in...2005? I think? (Don't take my word for that) I do know it was fabricated as part of the Parody church, though. I know that history well. :P

 

If the bible and FSM truly had equal proof of exactly who by and for what they were written Christianity would be nonexistent.

 

I guess this logic could be used for every holy book/deity out there. Zeus and the Greek Gods, the Bhgavad Gita, which I like to note is far older than the bible, and African religions as well.

 

What we know is the time of which the Bible was written and why they were written the way they were. The New Testament, for example, was put together significantly after the Jeshua figure died by followers of his supposed disciples. Over those generations things could have been misinterpreted or even exaggerated for more people to come in and believe in the faith. King James screwed the entire Bible up and even mistranslated some parts, and we also know that there are no known original Bible's, only reprints of reprints.

 

But Christianity, like any other Religion, is followed because there are believers, whose beliefs are stemmed from many different reasons--fear, loneliness, because you were born in that specific region that teaches about Yahweh--and those believers have these values because it will comfort them or because they need an explanation.

 

So in basic response to your last statement, I think it would still be followed because people could use the excuse of Divine inspiration for the Bible, which is the main excuse I receive a lot of the time and people know that pastafarianism was invented not-too-long ago as an example to the contra-Gods (or at least that was its original intent). The fact is, though, that neither/nor of them in the end cannot be refuted under any means, as the fact remains that both the Bible and the FSM are human made creations.

 

I probably rambled somewhere, so I hope some of this is relevant (and cogent--I'm tired) somewhere.

[sees_all1]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

[Myweponsg00d]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

[obfuscator]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

[Nenga]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

We have proof that Christan writers witnessed god creating the universe and god creating Adam?

[Myweponsg00d]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

We don't have proof that nobody witnessed the events described. We have proof that some guy wrote it down.

 

Which is the same thing we know about the Bible.

[obfuscator]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

We don't have proof that nobody witnessed the events described. We have proof that some guy wrote it down.

 

Which is the same thing we know about the Bible.

 

Uhh seeing as the creator of the writings admitted he created them in 2005 and could not possibly have been alive at the beginning of the universe...yeah, we do.

 

Which is not the same thing we know about the bible.

[sees_all1]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

You're not being concise, you're being dense. The FSM is a parody because it was created as such, this is well documented.

Created in 2005 by Oregon State physics graduate Bobby Henderson, it was originally intended as a satirical protest against the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to permit the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public schools. In an open letter sent to the Kansas State Board of Education, Henderson parodied the concept of intelligent design by professing belief in a supernatural creator that closely resembles spaghetti and meatballs. Henderson further called for his "Pastafarian" (portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarian) theory of creation to be allotted equal time in science classrooms alongside intelligent design and evolution. He explained that since the intelligent design movement uses ambiguous references to an unspecified "Intelligent Designer", any conceivable entity may fulfill that role, even a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Myweponsg00d]

Show me the documents then, that prove pastafarianism to be a hoax...Where is the "well documented" evidence that the FSM is a parody?

Are you trying to be dense?

No. I'm trying to be concise. If we have proof that Pastafarianism is entirely false then I would love to see it.

We don't have proof that the events Pastafarianism describes could not have occured, but we do have proof that no pastafarian writer witnessed them and they can have been nothing more than a wild guess.

We don't have proof that nobody witnessed the events described. We have proof that some guy wrote it down.

 

Which is the same thing we know about the Bible.

 

Uhh seeing as the creator of the writings admitted he created them in 2005 and could not possibly have been alive at the beginning of the universe...yeah, we do.

 

Which is not the same thing we know about the bible.

 

And we also know that nobody could have been alive at the beginning of the universe, Earth, or life on Earth. Thereby putting the accounts of Genesis in the same category.

 

You're not being concise, you're being dense. The FSM is a parody because it was created as such, this is well documented.

 

Who cares if he intended it to be a parody? I believe that the FSM gave him this inspiration to get the word out about His Noodly Appendage.

 

Clearly the idea came from somewhere. If we were all created by the FSM then the FSM gave him this idea, as proof of His existence.

 

Also if you view the official website for Pastafarianism, they say nothing about being a mockery of religion...Anti-Pastafarianists likely spread the false rumors about it being a mockery. People who don't believe in the FSM probably wrote that

[obfuscator]

 

And we also know that nobody could have been alive at the beginning of the universe, Earth, or life on Earth. Thereby putting the accounts of Genesis in the same category.

 

I'm talking about the new testament here. I'm quite aware that nobody was alive at the beginning of the universe.

 

Who cares if he intended it to be a parody? I believe that the FSM gave him this inspiration to get the word out about His Noodly Appendage.

 

This is why nobody bothers taking you seriously anymore.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

And we also know that nobody could have been alive at the beginning of the universe, Earth, or life on Earth. Thereby putting the accounts of Genesis in the same category.

 

I'm talking about the new testament here. I'm quite aware that nobody was alive at the beginning of the universe.

 

 

So you're talking about reported accounts of a bearded man who allegedly performed miracles. Oh, and somehow, nobody managed to hear about him except for those who lived in one tiny part of the world.

 

The only thing that the Bible has going for it over Henderson's religious documents is that the Bible was a collaborative work of fiction, as opposed to a singular author's work.

 

Also, what is the argument you are making? That the Bible is more likely to be true because we have less documentation about whether it is true or false?

 

So if you find a note on the street and it says "YOU WILL DIE TODAY" do you think that note is reputable because you don't know where it came from?

[sees_all1]

Who cares if he intended it to be a parody?

See, now you're changing your argument because you were shown to be wrong. You're not being clever, you're being stupid. And frustrating.

 

"Yes it happened"

"No it didn't!"

"Yes it did!"

"No it didn't!"

"Yes it did, and here's the proof."

"Well, who cares if it happened."

:rolleyes:

[obidiah]

 

And we also know that nobody could have been alive at the beginning of the universe, Earth, or life on Earth. Thereby putting the accounts of Genesis in the same category.

 

I'm talking about the new testament here. I'm quite aware that nobody was alive at the beginning of the universe.

 

 

So you're talking about reported accounts of a bearded man who allegedly performed miracles. Oh, and somehow, nobody managed to hear about him except for those who lived in one tiny part of the world.

 

The only thing that the Bible has going for it over Henderson's religious documents is that the Bible was a collaborative work of fiction, as opposed to a singular author's work.

 

Also, what is the argument you are making? That the Bible is more likely to be true because we have less documentation about whether it is true or false?

 

So if you find a note on the street and it says "YOU WILL DIE TODAY" do you think that note is reputable because you don't know where it came from?

 

We don't really know how far news of Jesus spread while he was alive, information from that era is pretty sparse. According to the bible he had become very well known in the local area and some people had heard of him from further away.

 

Information didn't spread anywhere near as quickly in that era, the communication systems just weren't there (infact a lot of the world hadn't even discovered each other). Stories of a man in a distant land who could work magic would not have been entirely out of the ordinary that enough people would write it down. So further affield reports of Jesus made during his lifetime are unlikely.

 

It's only after his death that the disciples learn more of the true nature of Jesus themselves at which point they have a more compelling and unusual story that will survive the passage of time to tell. Soon after a number of none biblical historical records of the spread of Christianity start to appear.

 

Generally it's considered very likely by the majority of historians that a Jew called Jesus existed at around that time and was some kind of preacher. Whether you believe if he was the son of god is the key divide between being a Christian and none-Christian. (not whether you believe he existed or not)

[Zygimantas]

Wouldn't we all be sons/daughters of god?

[Myweponsg00d]

Who cares if he intended it to be a parody?

See, now you're changing your argument because you were shown to be wrong. You're not being clever, you're being stupid. And frustrating.

 

"Yes it happened"

"No it didn't!"

"Yes it did!"

"No it didn't!"

"Yes it did, and here's the proof."

"Well, who cares if it happened."

:rolleyes:

 

Thats not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that whether or not the messenger of Pastafarianism thought it was a hoax does not change whether or not the stories of Pastafarianism are true. Personal anecdotal evidence is not evidence for or against any type of religion, including Pastafarianism.

 

If I discovered evidence of the FSM, would that evidence be rendered false because the "Creator" of the religion intended it to be a hoax?

 

We don't really know how far news of Jesus spread while he was alive, information from that era is pretty sparse. According to the bible he had become very well known in the local area and some people had heard of him from further away.

 

 

Actually theres detailed historical records of stories of the Egyptian empire that have been found in Asia and Europe, dating as far back as 5000 years ago. Clear historical records that the word of something significant was happening thousands of miles away.

 

Yet the son of god comes to Earth, and this is only 2000 years ago, and he resurrects from the dead...yet nobody other than the writers of the Bible feel that this is important enough to write down.

 

Also...even IF historical records from 2000 years ago were not kept very well...then that renders the Bible pretty insignificant because we are then working from the assumption that historical records from that time period are inaccurate...

[Zygimantas]

lol I dont even know whats being said on this thread anymore. You arent going to convince someone to drop their religion on a runescape fan site, nor are you going to convince someone to accept a religion. DROP IT

Yea... and I still don't see a problem with religion, as was my attitude at the beginning of the thread :P

[Myweponsg00d]

lol I dont even know whats being said on this thread anymore. You arent going to convince someone to drop their religion on a runescape fan site, nor are you going to convince someone to accept a religion. DROP IT

 

I enjoy the argument. It gives me a chance to sharpen my debate skills dealing with this subject. Already I have had to shoot down a few arguments that I've never heard before. Now when I debate creationists in the future I will have more ammo.

 

Yea... and I still don't see a problem with religion, as was my attitude at the beginning of the thread :P

 

I dont necessarily see a problem with religion in the ideal sense, but I see a problem with the way that religion is currently implemented. I don't think that stubborn belief about events actually transpiring in reality is a good thing. I don't think anyone should believe that man was poofed into existence by an intelligent creator. Nor that Earth, the Sun, the universe, etc was poofed into existence by an intelligent creator. A few hundred years ago, people thought it was necessary to believe that man was created by God. People said "The only way religion can function is if we were created by Him!" Now, even the Vatican accepts the fact that evolution is responsible for all life on Earth. The Vatican has even gone so far as to announce that the existence of extra terrestrial life would not destroy Catholocism.

 

Wake up people! You don't need to believe ANYTHING about reality in order to belong to a system of belief. You don't need to believe in a soul, you don't need to believe in an after life, you don't need to believe God created man, you don't need to believe God created the universe. You don't even need to believe a God exists. What religion does for man is gives him a way to feel thankful for the life he has been given, and unite him with those around him who share common views about morality. Hell, if religion wasn't so damned intwined with some stupid belief about making claims about physical things that happened, I would be fully eager to call myself religious. But I just can't get past the fact that so many people think that belief about the cosmos is somehow necessary for us to get together and celebrate the life we live.

 

Zygimantas...what do you think about that?

 

Another thing I despise about religion is the special treatment you get if you align yourself with a recognized religion. Places of employment will allow you to have the day off if it is a religious holiday of yours. Yeah well...you know what? October 11th is an extremely special day to me. It was a day of huge significance in my life and I even think about the day on every month's 11th date. In very many ways, I am emotionally, morally, and "spiritually" connected to this day. But if I tell my employer I want off on this day, it would have to count as a sick day. But if I followed some random religion, even if I wasn't a total devotee, people would suddenly care. Why? Just because "It's my religion"

[Zygimantas]

Yea... and I still don't see a problem with religion, as was my attitude at the beginning of the thread :P

 

I dont necessarily see a problem with religion in the ideal sense, but I see a problem with the way that religion is currently implemented. I don't think that stubborn belief about events actually transpiring in reality is a good thing. I don't think anyone should believe that man was poofed into existence by an intelligent creator. Nor that Earth, the Sun, the universe, etc was poofed into existence by an intelligent creator. A few hundred years ago, people thought it was necessary to believe that man was created by God. People said "The only way religion can function is if we were created by Him!" Now, even the Vatican accepts the fact that evolution is responsible for all life on Earth. The Vatican has even gone so far as to announce that the existence of extra terrestrial life would not destroy Catholocism.

 

Wake up people! You don't need to believe ANYTHING about reality in order to belong to a system of belief. You don't need to believe in a soul, you don't need to believe in an after life, you don't need to believe God created man, you don't need to believe God created the universe. You don't even need to believe a God exists. What religion does for man is gives him a way to feel thankful for the life he has been given, and unite him with those around him who share common views about morality. Hell, if religion wasn't so damned intwined with some stupid belief about making claims about physical things that happened, I would be fully eager to call myself religious. But I just can't get past the fact that so many people think that belief about the cosmos is somehow necessary for us to get together and celebrate the life we live.

 

Zygimantas...what do you think about that?

 

 

I don't disagree with you. I just don't seem to mind as much as you do. If one man thinks his life is a gift from a higher power then thats fine. He has the right to think what he wants, maybe this belief will allow him to enjoy his life more than many other people can. Then there could also be an atheist who doesn't believe in a higher power but also makes the most out of his life and enjoys the time that he has. There might be a Buddhist who spends most of his life meditating trying to find peace in himself and others.It's just life and we all experience it differently. Variety in human thoughts and beliefs is limitless, but it's ok. Some beliefs may seem evil and to others they may seem good. Variety is the spice of life... and I don't mind.

[sees_all1]

Thats not what I'm saying at all.

No, its what you said. Maybe the point you're trying to make is different, but you're not doing a very good job of making it.