OK, what do you know about FSM besides the name?
Challenge to atheists....
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
OK, what do you know about FSM besides the name?
Wait a sec. Are you guys presuming to test His Almighty Noodly Goodness? Isn't that against one of the 8 I really wish you wouldn't's?
I think I first read about FSM in NewScientist which basically was the argument from a science teacher who said if the morons that ran the Kansas educational board were going to slip creationism/ID into schools (as well as watering down evolution) then they would have to also include his theory's about FSM.
If I remember correctly the article was centered around what is "science". And then progresses to cover those dickheads over at the Discovery Institute who try to make science out to be something other that what it is. As a scientist I contend science is a concensous of peers (professional or not) which relying on evidence gathered from reproducible experiments. Which is different than say a mathematical proof - which is where DI likes to place it so that they can then use their pathetic wedge tactic to squeeze creationism into schools.
Anyway, other than that I don't know much about FSM, I heard he makes a good sauce though
Michael
OK i looked FSM up on wiki and from various linked wiki pages I learned two things:
1) This is a seriously funny parady http://objectiveministries.org/shutdown/. I espeaically like the bit on Landover Baptist website!
2) The ancient art of the strip tease traces its origins in the Sumerian tablets!
Cool!
Michael
1) This is a seriously funny parady http://objectiveministries.org/shutdown/. I espeaically like the bit on Landover Baptist website!
2) The ancient art of the strip tease traces its origins in the Sumerian tablets!
Cool!
Michael
Crom laughs at your Noodled Appendage.
Complete nonsense, no one has ever demonstrated prayer to work, in any degree.
Two hands working will accomplish far more than a million hands clasped in prayer.
It's easy to guarantee anything on an internet forum, anonymously. Go see Randi and put your money where your mouth is.
*************
M*W: I posted an answer recently regarding the effects of prayer in healing disease. I cannot find the post just now, but here are some peer-reviewed papers on the positive outcomes from prayer, meditation, positive affirmations and positive-thinking. Please don't misconstrue my post as if I am implying that there is a god. I'm not, but "prayer," "meditation," "positive affirmations," and the power of "positive-thinking," based on one's culture or belief system has been documented to show that the are statistically significant in healing the patient and/or disease. References follow:
1: Arias AJ, Steinberg K, Banga A, Trestman RL. Systematic review of the efficacy of meditation techniques as treatments for medical illness. J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Oct;12(8):817-32.
2: Sandor MK. The labyrinth: a walking meditation for healing and self-care. Explore (NY). 2005 Nov;1(6):480-3.
3: Bormann JE, Smith TL, Becker S, Gershwin M, Pada L, Grudzinski AH, Nurmi EA. Efficacy of frequent mantram repetition on stress, quality of life, and spiritual well-being in veterans: a pilot study. J Holist Nurs. 2005 Dec;23(4):395-414.
4: Taylor EJ. Spiritual complementary therapies in cancer care. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2005 Aug;21(3):159-63. Review.
5: Birnbaum L. Adolescent aggression and differentiation of self: guided mindfulness meditation in the service of individuation. Scientific World Journal. 2005 Jun 23;5:478-89.
6: D'Souza RF, Rodrigo A. Spiritually augmented cognitive behavioural therapy. Australas Psychiatry. 2004 Jun;12(2):148-52.
7: Ott MJ. Mindfulness meditation: a path of transformation & healing. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2004 Jul;42(7):22-9.
8: Wolsko PM, Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Use of mind-body medical therapies. J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Jan;19(1):43-50.
9: Otani A. Eastern meditative techniques and hypnosis: a new synthesis. Am J Clin Hypn. 2003 Oct;46(2):97-108.
10: Gerard S, Smith BH, Simpson JA. A randomized controlled trial of spiritual healing in restricted neck movement. J Altern Complement Med. 2003 Aug;9 (4):467-77.
11: Jonas WB. Spiritual healing research: rigor but no stiff neck. J Altern Complement Med. 2003 Aug;9(4):451-3.
12: Yu T, Tsai HL, Hwang ML. Suppressing tumor progression of in vitro prostate cancer cells by emitted psychosomatic power through Zen meditation. Am J Chin Med. 2003;31(3):499-507.
13: Tatsumura Y, Maskarinec G, Shumay DM, Kakai H. Religious and spiritual resources, CAM, and conventional treatment in the lives of cancer patients. Altern Ther Health Med. 2003 May-Jun;9(3):64-71.
Michael,
That site is hilarious, thanks.
So we know that FSM was created by a scientist as a counter argument to theism. Therefore FSM does not actually exist, ipso facto, carpe diem.
I understand how prayer could work, by harnessing the innate power of the mind, but that also means that it doesn't depend on any specific mythology.
That site is hilarious, thanks.
So we know that FSM was created by a scientist as a counter argument to theism. Therefore FSM does not actually exist, ipso facto, carpe diem.
I understand how prayer could work, by harnessing the innate power of the mind, but that also means that it doesn't depend on any specific mythology.
I don't think anyone doubts that PMA (positive mental attitude) etc has an effect on the individual.
But there is a very big difference, as I know you are aware, between the mental attitude of someone, be it through prayer, meditation or merely self-affirmation, and the actual act of a God granting the person's prayer-request through some alterance of the material realm.
So you are saying God doesn't have a choice in the matter? That he cannot use a person's capacity for positive thought to allow them to help themselves?
If you think, like I do, that the concept of God as described by Jesus was similar to the Tao, inseparable from the universe itself, an inherent passive quality, then there is no difference whatsoever.
Ofcourse there is, lots of evidence, also get this through your thick skull evidence is NOT the cause of the truth, evidence does NOT cause something to become true, all the future discoveries and things found to be true were already true BEFORE the evidence....Pluto was there before it was discovered so...ofcourse you having no sense at all would believe that it never existed until it was discovered right?
Well its yes, so you failMichael said:
No, the FSM argument was created just for the purpose of ridiculing theists, not as a search for the truth, but as a parody...Michael said:
Again all this points to you not wanting to seek the truth, you know the actual truth, the way things really are, you simply moan on and on about logical arguments...how about the fact that spaghetti can't fly? Ok, FSM has been disproven....Michael said:
Hahhahaha...so then what do you call the placebo-effect? Isn't it not exactly what Jesus said? But go on and continue in your efforts to preserve your atheistic faith instead of finding out what the truth is...
If you want to talk about James Randi how about we talk about the $250,000 evolution challenge....if anyone is able to prove with empirical evidence that macroevolution is true they get $250,000 to this date no one has, through your logic that should mean that evolution is false....right?
Ok. Like what? Be specific. Don't be a pussy. Tell us the evidence.
Why do you keep going on like this? No one ever said or implied this. Here's the deal, and I expect to to shut up about this from here on out.
You can propose any number of things in this universe. Some will turn out to be true, the vast majority won't. Now, I know the answer to this question: What color are my eyes? I'll tell you. They're hazel. Do you believe me? Do you fervently believe me? Why or Why not?
Now, let's put ourselves in the year 1000 BC. I claim that there are two small "galaxies" orbiting ours (not that you even know what a galaxy is). Do you believe me? Why or why not? Do you believe fervently that this is true?
Can you understand that no one is making the assinine claim that evidence makes anything true or not? The ultimate truth or falsity of something is irrelevant. What counts is that you base your belief on smart or stupid reasons.
You can't know (in 1000 BC) that there are two small galaxies orbiting ours, and WTF is a galaxy anyway? But they are really there. So what? Would you base a life philosophy on such a rediculous statement? You have no way to determine if these galaxy thingies exist. Only my say-so. Only an idiot would become a Small Magellanic and Large Magellanic Cloud apostle.
Do you get it now?
The other thing is, most of us are smarter than you. Keep that in mind when you say really stupid shit like
The placebo-effect demonstrates the brains ability to cause the body to produce certain chemical compounds and to modify the person's emotional state based on bio-feedback. Is that what jesus said? I must have missed that in my readings.
The observer.
Well you said it best here "the ultimate truth or falsity of something is irrelvant" this is yet another proof that atheists aren't seeking the truth, so go on continuing to preserve your atheistic faith...the truth irrevalant to you people....superluminal said:
Its funny, your whole argument is about "belief" not "truth", you're right evidence causes someone to believe in something, thats it....thereby you're proving that atheism is based chiefly upon "belief" not "truth", congratulations for proofing yourself to be no different from theists with blind faith....
Here's how atheists imply that "evidence causes something to become true".....If I say I believe that God exists atheists say "no you're wrong, you're living in an imaginary fantasy, if there is no evidence for nor against your claim the claim must be false" thereby atheists are saying "if there is no evidence for nor against something it must be false"....which is the same as saying "evidence for something causes it to become true", there again you've been proven wrong...wrong wrong wrong
No, but you certaintly don't even get how you believe that evidence causes something to become true. Again, stop assuming shit like you're smarter than me because you're an atheist and you say so.......superluminal said:
Last edited:
Jesus said that if you believe something already happened, then it will become true....the placebo-effect is a direct demonstration of this...people believe they're already healed by some pill...and it becomes so...
Care to elaborate?
Did you read my post explainng how this is not true?
I don't. I know I'm smarter than you based on copious evidence in the form of your posts and responses. You can't seem to keep a simple concept in your head for more than one or two posts and then you go back to repeating the same things that everyone else here thinks are already resolved.
Like the fact that no one here holds the fucking idiotic position that evidence causes things to be true. Evidence can verify the truth of a thing. Which is why we ask for evidence of deities. See?
Now you can go and forget what I just posted and tell us all how we think evidence causes truth. Go on. It'll be fun to laugh at you some more.
I believe I've become a millionaire. Waiting...
The placebo-effect only demonstrates a biochemical feedback loop. A totally internal biological reaction.
The observer seems to fulfill all the things religion says, being causeless, unborn, eternal, existing before the material world, being within you, existing everywhere, beyond time, etc...
I did, but you still don't understand how you even though you say don't believe evidence causes something to become true still believes so, if you hadn't believed this then you wouldn't say "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for nor against God's existence"...but you do.......superluminal said:
Ah, the reason I repeat myself is because you do not understand, why do you ask for evidence if you do not believe that evidence causes something to become true? And at the sametime you admit that currently we are incapable of gaining evidence? So what you're saying is that if there's no evidence for nor against a claim it must be false...meaning you believe that evidence causes something to become true, otherwise if you had not believed that evidence causes something to become true you would be agnostic and you would uphold that God existence is a very real possiblity...but atheists do neither of the above...superluminal said: