Well to prove he doesn't exist I would have to know all the attributes of FSM...but we do KNOW that it was intended fiction, an intended parody, something an atheist came up with to discredit the concept of God...but the concept of God is completely different from FSM in every imaginable aspect...it's like someone saying they don't believe in the geocentric theory, so every other theory in science must be false simply because they are also theories...
Atheists here
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
Well to prove he doesn't exist I would have to know all the attributes of FSM...but we do KNOW that it was intended fiction, an intended parody, something an atheist came up with to discredit the concept of God...but the concept of God is completely different from FSM in every imaginable aspect...it's like someone saying they don't believe in the geocentric theory, so every other theory in science must be false simply because they are also theories...
No, FSM hasnt been made up
Dont offend my God, please.
And it just so happens that the FSM has all the same attributes as your god.
So have a go at it.
If FSM has the same attributes as God why use the words Flying Spaghetti Monster if it has nothing to with anything that's flying, sphaghetti, or a monster?
FSM was made up as intended fiction, an intended parody, the lies these atheists will come up with in order to preserve the atheistic faith is amazing...
How so?
Merely saying that you think it is different doesn't make it so.
Please state your "concept of God".
No... it's not. It's nothing like that.
To demonstrate this you will need to provide your "concept of God".
So please go ahead and do so.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ok, but you do see what im trying to do here, dont you ?
Really, since there no evidence whatsoever that proves Gods existence how exactly is that different from any imaginary deity or whatever i can make up ?
Please read up on the following, and you might understand where im coming from (and many, if not all, other atheists):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapot
Wrong. Not only is physical evidence of your "god" totally absent, but there are particular mathematical formulae which prove that god is impossible to define, and therefore impossible to prove.
To what questions?
The questions that we all ask. Does God exist? Do I understand correctly if or not god exists? (BTW: Just took 2 ativans so i feel a bit drunk)
Is this an incorrect meathod? Finding the best authority figures on God and the beliefs of the greatest of the christians for example, will at least show me how to be an atheist, which is a very distasteful position to me!
I am in the process of reconfiguring my life still.
Make more please. "You don't care about truth Brent"
"Brent you don't want to accept the truth"
"Brent, you are a waste of everyones time.
"Brent, you should stop what you are doing and go be isolated somewhere as you so crave".
But it's sort of hard for me to say them to myself, so, give me more, please.
That's Right George Bishiop Berkley or whatever. If you are saying Berkleys arguement is refuted, also, your calling him a medociare philosopher stands aganist my reasoning, anyway, that's great. I'm glad you refuted him. I wish you could refute lebinez or spinozas pantheisism. There are intellectual believers of god. (ex God)
Rather, all of them are more than willing to back up their claims.
he does not claim that he sprouts new biological organs, first. I'm sure. Either way, if he is delusional, good for him. That sucks for him. I doubt we can logically disprove God exists. It may be done and if has been done, then perhaps I will wonder and be agnostical theist... Sorr for the ativan
You haven't I am sure refuted Lebinez.
This part is interesting though. You have no idea at what hell I have been through. No idea whatsoever. I am still recovering. SKinwalker is still beating on me and i am making myself look foolish, but it is all on purpose I suppose. Damn that. ANyway, I will always value truth. I probably value it moreso than you do. I care about how my claims mesh with reality. I'll give this some thought as if I don't already have enough to think about.
Yup. Generial Grevious.. wants to relax.
I doubt that. More like "perceptual understanding of something called God." But either way, I don't feel like going further as I don't think anyone is going to disprove pantheisism or anything else.
For something to exist, the mental representation must match to a corresponding object in reality.
You mean like... What? Pantheisism?
Edit: Read the post by sciphemonon first as he says so.
Skinwalker;
It appears we are for the very first time about to meet face to face. I am well prepared (sort of), and expecting a great fight. Show me what I got and I'll show you what you got? Or I'll show you what I got and you show me what I got. Ok?
It was actually BS, because the whole post seemed to me as if it were falling into oblivion. It did not reach what I expected it to reach. I could go back. But I will deal with this post instead.
I don't mind being called out. Infact, were I well enough to debate with my full potential with you guys, things would change. But give that time.
What does define your post as bs? I don't know
Well, the suggestion of berkley was actually preperation for an arguement that I simply DID NOT WRITE. It was going to say,
"Have you refuted Berkley? No, then you should not be refuting him. Have you refuted Lebinez? No, well why are you refuting him? Have you disproven god exists? Well why are you not refuting Berkeley, Lebinez, and all of the other... BLa bla bla bla. ............."
And I have failed skinwalker. I have failed. But, the arguement is still here for us, at least somewhat, if we feel like discussing it. The strawman arguement should have taken off, and I feel it is. I decide for them to deal with the arguement I am presenting, no delsuion. The your wrong because i'm right arguement isn't intended to be that way maybe. You're wrong, I'm right about God existing maybe? That seems like a reasonable position I think . if they want to discuss if, fine. if they don't want to discuss it, that's fine by me I guess. But perhaps they can instead see the potential arguement as what it was meant to be?
On the surface and from all other angles as well. Unless you flesh out your position that Berkeley has defined god in such a way that sends all reasoned mind packing for the nearest sheep pen of a church. Berkeley made many claims about god. Which, specifically, are you implying have gone un-refuted? Let us put your claim in the open and I'll cite you the proper refutation, for each of Berkeley's delusions, thought-experiments, and attempts at philosophical discourse have long been laid to rest with regard to the delusion that there is evidence of a god at work in the universe.
I am not going to argue for berkley. I will argue for theory. And if you have any problem with that... tell me.
Don't feel ashamed about me.
I'm working on my shit. I've presented an arguement that I don't want to take no more part in than is necessary at the time. And I'm sorry for being a little bit drunk. But anyway, I hope the thread is good, and sorry for the infraction thing. I'll watch my back... in the future, that is.
Skinwalker;
It appears we are for the very first time about to meet face to face. I am well prepared (sort of), and expecting a great fight. Show me what I got and I'll show you what you got? Or I'll show you what I got and you show me what I got. Ok?
It was actually BS, because the whole post seemed to me as if it were falling into oblivion. It did not reach what I expected it to reach. I could go back. But I will deal with this post instead.
I don't mind being called out. Infact, were I well enough to debate with my full potential with you guys, things would change. But give that time.
What does define your post as bs? I don't know
Well, the suggestion of berkley was actually preperation for an arguement that I simply DID NOT WRITE. It was going to say,
"Have you refuted Berkley? No, then you should not be refuting him. Have you refuted Lebinez? No, well why are you refuting him? Have you disproven god exists? Well why are you not refuting Berkeley, Lebinez, and all of the other... BLa bla bla bla. ............."
And I have failed skinwalker. I have failed. But, the arguement is still here for us, at least somewhat, if we feel like discussing it. The strawman arguement should have taken off, and I feel it is. I decide for them to deal with the arguement I am presenting, no delsuion. The your wrong because i'm right arguement isn't intended to be that way maybe. You're wrong, I'm right about God existing maybe? That seems like a reasonable position I think . if they want to discuss if, fine. if they don't want to discuss it, that's fine by me I guess. But perhaps they can instead see the potential arguement as what it was meant to be?
On the surface and from all other angles as well. Unless you flesh out your position that Berkeley has defined god in such a way that sends all reasoned mind packing for the nearest sheep pen of a church. Berkeley made many claims about god. Which, specifically, are you implying have gone un-refuted? Let us put your claim in the open and I'll cite you the proper refutation, for each of Berkeley's delusions, thought-experiments, and attempts at philosophical discourse have long been laid to rest with regard to the delusion that there is evidence of a god at work in the universe.
I am not going to argue for berkley. I will argue for theory. And if you have any problem with that... tell me.
Don't feel ashamed about me.
I'm working on my shit. I've presented an arguement that I don't want to take no more part in than is necessary at the time. And I'm sorry for being a little bit drunk. But anyway, I hope the thread is good, and sorry for the infraction thing. I'll watch my back... in the future, that is.
Last edited:
How dare you besmirch Pastafarianism? May HIS noodly appendage smite thee! We even have religious books (for example):
http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Pasta-Cookbook-Whitecap-Books/dp/1551106566
And, and, The Spaghetti Tree (Miracle of miracles)...
http://www.food-info.net/uk/products/pasta/history.htm
ALL hard evidence, as you can see.
No, none of it is hard evidence and this is ALL intended fiction, you atheists will try any cheap tactic in order to preserve and protect the atheistic faith-based belief system....you do this in order to win converts and to promote and spread the faith...
No it doesn't make it the same at all...Is the superstring theory and many-worlds interpretation both the samething simply because there's no evidence for them? No you would never say that, if you did people you would be amazed at what a fool you were...similarly anyone who takes two completely different things, pretends they're same, then says "see if one isn't true, the other isn't either" is just irrational...
No, I don't understand at all...what does any of this have to do with God, the causeless cause?Enmos said:
Ok...God is the unborn, unmade, the causeless cause, the cause of all causes, always present within you, the cause of all existence, the one without second, unchanging, the non-doer, smaller than the smallest particle, the origin of all things, the source of all, the origin of reality itself, the basis of all realities/universes, etc...How so?
Merely saying that you think it is different doesn't make it so.
Please state your "concept of God".
No... it's not. It's nothing like that.
To demonstrate this you will need to provide your "concept of God".
So please go ahead and do so.
God was made up as intended reality, an intended truth, the lies these theists will come up with in order to preserve the theistic faith is amazing...
It is truly amazing, how easy it is to substitute one god for another, and still end up with exactly the same meaning.
Actually, the intent is to make theists look the fools. They usually follow suit.
You're mistaken, no one is claiming superstring theory or the many worlds interpretation as a reality, they're merely theories that require testing. Theists ALWAYS claim their gods are real.
BIG DIFFERENCE!
No, that is the FSM.
How do you know he wasn't?
Yeah, you're right atheism is entirely based off ridiculing theism..."Everyone else is just another delusional fool, except for atheists"
No, it's not a big difference...if you say that FSM and God are the same even though they possess entirely different characteristics, attributes, properties, etc...then it's the same as the superstring theory and the many-worlds interpretation are the same...(Q) said:
If you say that FSM has the EXACT same attributes, properties, characteristics, etc...of God then I would say there's no point in the word FSM....it's just another tactic used to ridicule theists and preserve the atheistic faith-based belief system....why call something a Flying Spaghetti Monster if it has absolutely nothing to do with anything flying, spaghetti, or monster-like?(Q) said:
Well I absolutely KNOW for 100% sure because of my personal experiences...
Also you're using an argument from ignorance...
Of course, and why not? Theists believe in superstitions and myths and delude themselves into thinking it's real.
No, not quite. Theists claim their gods are real and exist. Scientists postulate that superstrings and many worlds are real and exist.
Other theists believe those theists claims that gods are real and exist. Other scientists test to try and falsify by making a prediction; a guess. They try to demonstrate that superstrings and many worlds ARE NOT real and DO NOT exist.
Oh, but the attributes, properties, characteristics, etc. of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are unknowable, yet are as clear as an azure sky. One must perceive the Flying Spaghetti Monster as without gender, yet completely androgynous, hence the FSM must always be referred to as the FSM. The use of personal pronouns such as he, him, his or some such term is meaningless.
Your god is but a mere mortal compared with the one true god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I've often heard of and always welcomed to hear of the personal experiences that make one 100% sure of their gods. I haven't heard anything thus far that constitutes little more than what an imagination can conjure.
By all means, let's hear yours?
Ignorant of what?
-VitalOne
-Q
-VitalOne
Of course the obviouse irony is that your original argument, VitalOne, was from ignorance, Q simply responded with the exact same one. Of course Q claims god was made up, the proof lies in the fact that nobody claims god wrote the bible, everyone (eg priests) who I have spoken to state that it was indeed created by humans; "God was made up as intended reality, an intended truth": the writers did intend it to be a book of truth, thus they made up this god from their ideas (even if they were based on sound evidence of god, thoug hwe can't prove that.) No this does not mean god does not exist, but it means there is still no proof for him to exist.
The difference between the bible and the book on the FSM is that in one, we assume the authors beleived what they were writing, and the other, the others didnt beleive. However, beleif does not effect truth.
Reductio ad absurdum the "cheap tactic" you are reffering too, and a valid argument. It doesn't say much for you that your counter-point is an argument ad hominem either.
All of these (God, and invisible pink unicorn, and a teapot floating in space) have 2 identicle characteristics: neither have evidence proven in favour of them, and neither have evidence disproving them. Thus, we have the same amount of knowlege of the existance of each, ie: God is just as much likely to exist, or not exist, as an invisible pink unicorn.
Well, the fact is we happen to know weather those sources of the FSM were made by humans or not, but that does not disproove the FSM.
Just because something has been made up as fiction doesnt mean the idea could not be correct.
The point is to demonstrate how atheists see texts such as the bible: useless, not a provable text of god.
Once again, ad hominem.
Of course, if your definition of god then happened to coincide with the attributes of the predicted singularity which precluded the big bang (see Hawkings works) then in turn, god would be a pointless word...
So, let's compare to a singularity then:
-unborn and unmade: in a singularity, time has no meaning, so it cannot be born or made.
-the causeless cause, the cause of all causes, the cause of all existence, the origin of all things, the source of all, the origin of reality itself, (grouped these together since they essentialy mean the same thing): since time has broken down, so has causality, thus it is the starting chain of all causes, it is the start of all existance, and the origin of reality etc...
-the one without second, unchanging: once again, no time = no change and thus no seconds.
-the basis of all realities/universes: well that's the very basis of the theory.
-smaller than the smallest particle: indeed, such a singularity would have been infinitly small.
-always present within you: ah, the oddball, a very vague statement too. However, the universe is always presant within me, and it was the singularity, thus one could say it is always within me.
So then, looks like god is just a fancy name for the singularity that was the universe before the bigbang.
-Andrew
Last edited:
Do you understand why you are asking those questions?
Every idea has authorities on it. Every idea does not have a corresponding object in reality. If you want to learn more about an idea, an authority is certainly an option. If you want to see an idea's corresponding object in reality, you have to go to reality (not an authority).
Is that what you hear in your head when you read my words?
I don't know what skill Berkley had with philosophy. It's pretty irrelevant. He made an incorrect claim. That's all there is to it. Sure I can refute Leibniz. He claimed 'Monads' exist... and there is no evidence for them... and there is evidence for other things that contradict Monads (strings for example). He stands refuted. Spinoza claimed 'God' is nature. Take human features and put it on nature and what do you get? Mother nature. Put human features on time, and you get Father time. Put human features on a rabbit and you get Bugs Bunny. Spinoza anthropomorphized nature... just like all humans anthropmorhopize something. He stands refuted.
It doesn't matter if they are willing or unwilling. They simply don't have the means to do so.
He claims just that and it probably does suck to be him.
The moment anybody assigns 'God' detail... such as a name, something it did, something it asserted, etc. is the moment it becomes falsifiable... and shortly after falsified. Every human claim of 'God's existence can be disproven. The generic idea of a 'God' cannot.
That's exactly what Pantheism is. Anthropomorphization of reality.
In Pantheism, the reality certainly exists... just not the eyes, nose, mouth, emotion, etc. being put on it via anthropomorphization.
Last edited:
Lol! That was kind of my point too! You severely lack comprehension of what constitutes an Atheist. We do not have faith, we have knowledge, that which can be observed, measured, predicted, tested and corobborated. It is most reasonable to assume that god does not exist until evidence to the contrary arises.
But of course, if you are denying that He revealed His visage unto me at the holy temple - Renato's Italian Restaurant (of Rene and Renato fame) - then I would HAVE to consider that unjust persecution of a minority religion. Why did He appear as a pasta dish? I do not know for "He works in mysterious ways", and not forgetting that, "His ways, are not Our ways"... you may as well ask, "What keeps the clouds in the sky?" (I'll tell you now it's invisible noodles...)