Pastafarian miracles
- Thread starter TFL
- Start date
yuuup..
not all attempted jokes are jokes.
aha, so you think i was serious???
how dense are you?
loool.....
:scratchin:
I bet your daughter would like the FSM.
Are you being serious or facetious? If the former, how is the FSM bigoted? I don't agree with it - I think it's a false comparison - but is it necessarily bigoted? Or are you saying the application on the forum is bigoted?
I think I would go with "facetious", but you never can tell with T...
On the other hand, my understanding of the House of Tiassa is that it is all about change and evolution, so maybe he's jealous. Perhaps we should form the Royal Order of Tiassticism, a new and updated religion for today's world.
(Not sure how Steven Brust will take all this...)
We can worship Delta, the God of change - the advantage being, of course, that we can (have to?) change our conception of God on a daily basis. (At a minimum.) That way Tiassa can be the catalyst for our newly found truth, plus, wherever we look for God, he isn't there - He's already moved on!
As to this part, we will have to consult the Oracle, for I knoweth not.... :shrug:
This and that
A bit of both. Or more like making a serious point by being facetious. I find Answer's response somewhat lacking.
Honor is vitally important to the House of the Tiassa. The quandary I face in these issues is the notion of when there are no good guys. On general principle, I side with atheists against institutional religion. In the specifics, though, I cannot endorse what I consider a bigoted pursuit.
Which, of course, brings us to ....
The FSM (pcbuh) is a dead horse being beaten to dust because it is easy. It is atheistic intellectual sloth. The reality seems to be that atheists so loathe religion that they don't want to get anywhere near it, which is why they need to argue with the lowest, most simplistic manifestations of religious faith they can find. Hell, my seven year-old daughter knows better; we had a blast together last night looking through various websites purporting appearances of the Madonna. She thought the cheese toast was hilarious.
And that's great. But there is simply more to debates about the legitimacy of religious philosophies than simplicity. For instance, American Christianity often puzzles our neighbors abroad. This is to be expected, and not just for the histrionics of the Republican Party and its evangelical wing.
Consider Dr. Mark Noll, presently the McAnaney Professor of History at University of Notre Dame, and formerly the McManis Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College:
That's not quite a full page from the introduction to America's God. It's not that we all have to be Dr. Noll, but rather that the FSM is a convenient device avoiding deeper intellectual consideration of religious philosophy, psychology, and belief while simultaneously offering the cheap thrill of supremacist expression.
If the subjective philosophy debated was economic theory, wouldn't we expect the critic to understand at least a few substantial and fundamental issues? Really, how many loud leftists over the last forty years have demonstrated themselves completely clueless about the capitalism they decry?
How should we regard these willfully ignorant atheists? In the past, the clueless were scorned. Now, by the almighty FSM (pcbuh), they are to be admired?
It seems to me that the FSM bloc of atheists are largely aware that if they actually challenged theological intelligentsia, they would get carved into bits and laughed out of the room for their childish, ultimately ridiculous "understanding"—such as it is—of religion. So they do what any bigot in their position does—retreat into denigration and spite.
The tragedy here is that as a generic assessment of the dispute between theists and atheists, I put moral propriety with the atheists; after all, religious folks have simply blown it. But with childish, bigoted bullshit like this FSM (pcbuh) overdose, the atheistic movement is pissing away that moral advantage, and into a strong headwind.
____________________
Notes:
A note for Randwolf — I forgot a small point:
I suppose you could always ask him. He'd probably enjoy the attention.
Works Cited:
Noll, Mark A. America's God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Randwolf said:
A bit of both. Or more like making a serious point by being facetious. I find Answer's response somewhat lacking.
Honor is vitally important to the House of the Tiassa. The quandary I face in these issues is the notion of when there are no good guys. On general principle, I side with atheists against institutional religion. In the specifics, though, I cannot endorse what I consider a bigoted pursuit.
Which, of course, brings us to ....
• • •
GeoffP said:
The FSM (pcbuh) is a dead horse being beaten to dust because it is easy. It is atheistic intellectual sloth. The reality seems to be that atheists so loathe religion that they don't want to get anywhere near it, which is why they need to argue with the lowest, most simplistic manifestations of religious faith they can find. Hell, my seven year-old daughter knows better; we had a blast together last night looking through various websites purporting appearances of the Madonna. She thought the cheese toast was hilarious.
And that's great. But there is simply more to debates about the legitimacy of religious philosophies than simplicity. For instance, American Christianity often puzzles our neighbors abroad. This is to be expected, and not just for the histrionics of the Republican Party and its evangelical wing.
Consider Dr. Mark Noll, presently the McAnaney Professor of History at University of Notre Dame, and formerly the McManis Professor of Christian Thought at Wheaton College:
The changes taking place in American religious thought from the 1730s to the 1860s were part of a general shift within Western religious life. Other English-speaking regions were also experiencing the move from early-modern to modern religion marked by heightened spiritual inwardness, a new confidience in individual action, and various accommodations to the marketplace ....
.... Western Protestantism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was moving from establishment forms fo religion, embedded in traditional, organic, premodern political economies, to individualized and affectional forms adapted to modernizing, rational, and market-oriented societies. Theological manifestations of these changes can be described in several ways. They first reoriented specific beliefs: God was perceived less often as transcendent and self-contained, more foten as immanent and relational. Divine revelation was equated more simply with the Bible alone than with Scripture embedded in a self-conscious ecclesiastical tradition. The physical world created by God was more likely to be regardeed as understandable, progressing, and malleable than as mysterious, inimical, and fixed. Theological method came to rely less on instinctive deference to inherited confessions and more on self-evident propositions organized by scientific method.
Theological changes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also involved a shift in meaning for key concepts that operated in both religious an dpolitical life, for example, "freedom", "justice", "virtue", and "vice". For theology, the process at work was the same as Gordon Wood once described for intellectual developments more generally: "Although words and concepts may remain outwardly the same for centuries, their particular functions and meanings do not and could not remain static—not as long as individuals attempt to use them to explain new social circumstances and make meaningful new social behavior." In America as much was happening in theology from new meanings given to old words as from the introduction of new vocabularies.
The years from 1730 to 1865 witnessed theological debates that were every bit as contentious as those from earlier periods in the Christian West, and the specific theological questions receiving the most concentrated attention were also usually inherited from previous generatons: To what extent was human nature incapacitated by sin? How did the fall of Adam and Eve affect later generations? How did God's grace work to rescue sinners? What was the best way to describe atonement with God won by Christ on the cross? What should believers expect when attempting to live a Christian life? Could there be some kind of Christian perfection before eternity? But these questions were increasingly debated—among elites, among the people at large, and between elites and populists—in forms molded by the times.
(3-4)
.... Western Protestantism in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was moving from establishment forms fo religion, embedded in traditional, organic, premodern political economies, to individualized and affectional forms adapted to modernizing, rational, and market-oriented societies. Theological manifestations of these changes can be described in several ways. They first reoriented specific beliefs: God was perceived less often as transcendent and self-contained, more foten as immanent and relational. Divine revelation was equated more simply with the Bible alone than with Scripture embedded in a self-conscious ecclesiastical tradition. The physical world created by God was more likely to be regardeed as understandable, progressing, and malleable than as mysterious, inimical, and fixed. Theological method came to rely less on instinctive deference to inherited confessions and more on self-evident propositions organized by scientific method.
Theological changes of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also involved a shift in meaning for key concepts that operated in both religious an dpolitical life, for example, "freedom", "justice", "virtue", and "vice". For theology, the process at work was the same as Gordon Wood once described for intellectual developments more generally: "Although words and concepts may remain outwardly the same for centuries, their particular functions and meanings do not and could not remain static—not as long as individuals attempt to use them to explain new social circumstances and make meaningful new social behavior." In America as much was happening in theology from new meanings given to old words as from the introduction of new vocabularies.
The years from 1730 to 1865 witnessed theological debates that were every bit as contentious as those from earlier periods in the Christian West, and the specific theological questions receiving the most concentrated attention were also usually inherited from previous generatons: To what extent was human nature incapacitated by sin? How did the fall of Adam and Eve affect later generations? How did God's grace work to rescue sinners? What was the best way to describe atonement with God won by Christ on the cross? What should believers expect when attempting to live a Christian life? Could there be some kind of Christian perfection before eternity? But these questions were increasingly debated—among elites, among the people at large, and between elites and populists—in forms molded by the times.
(3-4)
That's not quite a full page from the introduction to America's God. It's not that we all have to be Dr. Noll, but rather that the FSM is a convenient device avoiding deeper intellectual consideration of religious philosophy, psychology, and belief while simultaneously offering the cheap thrill of supremacist expression.
If the subjective philosophy debated was economic theory, wouldn't we expect the critic to understand at least a few substantial and fundamental issues? Really, how many loud leftists over the last forty years have demonstrated themselves completely clueless about the capitalism they decry?
How should we regard these willfully ignorant atheists? In the past, the clueless were scorned. Now, by the almighty FSM (pcbuh), they are to be admired?
It seems to me that the FSM bloc of atheists are largely aware that if they actually challenged theological intelligentsia, they would get carved into bits and laughed out of the room for their childish, ultimately ridiculous "understanding"—such as it is—of religion. So they do what any bigot in their position does—retreat into denigration and spite.
The tragedy here is that as a generic assessment of the dispute between theists and atheists, I put moral propriety with the atheists; after all, religious folks have simply blown it. But with childish, bigoted bullshit like this FSM (pcbuh) overdose, the atheistic movement is pissing away that moral advantage, and into a strong headwind.
____________________
Notes:
A note for Randwolf — I forgot a small point:
(Not sure how Steven Brust will take all this...)
I suppose you could always ask him. He'd probably enjoy the attention.
Works Cited:
Noll, Mark A. America's God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
It's a plate of Spaghetti with eyes, not a substitute for in-depth argument you humorless cad.
I do it all the time, that's no reason not to have fun once in a while. FSM is a cartoonish way to confront the religious without the serious overtones. We want to make atheism fun for kids. We need a mascot, an icon.
In fact, I just participated in a formal debate to refute the mirculous nature of the Quran. So there.
I agree with spidergoat, get a sense of humour Tiassa.
Show me any evidence you have for your accusation that athiests who think that FSM is funny do not know anything about religious arguments or the psychology or philosophy of religious thought?
I think FSM is funny, and I've also studied 2 years at Bible college, since then I have become an athiest and I have studied the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Queensland, and I am 3 years into a Bachelor of Psychological Science. Do I know Philosophy? Yes. Psychology? Yes. Theology and appologetics? Yes.
But according to you all athiests who have a laugh with FSM are ignorant.... now who is being bigoted?
Show me any evidence you have for your accusation that athiests who think that FSM is funny do not know anything about religious arguments or the psychology or philosophy of religious thought?
I think FSM is funny, and I've also studied 2 years at Bible college, since then I have become an athiest and I have studied the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Queensland, and I am 3 years into a Bachelor of Psychological Science. Do I know Philosophy? Yes. Psychology? Yes. Theology and appologetics? Yes.
But according to you all athiests who have a laugh with FSM are ignorant.... now who is being bigoted?
I'm not obstinate, intolerant, or irrational. I am somewhat prejudiced against the religious, because to me, it's like admitting you are irrational. Faith is the opposite of reason, and I admire reason.
(chortle!)
Too bad you didn't learn anything.
Having just reviewed that thread, I can tell you that your argument isn't even up to high school standards. If I had turned in that sort of argument in high school, I would have failed.
Answers said:
Too bad you didn't learn anything.
• • •
Spidergoat said:
Having just reviewed that thread, I can tell you that your argument isn't even up to high school standards. If I had turned in that sort of argument in high school, I would have failed.
Last edited:
I won, go fuck yourself[sup]1[/sup].
________________________
Works cited:
1. p.136, Most Appropriate Things to Say to Asshole Forum Moderators, Vol. 3, 2007
Notes:
- I have poor impulse control.
- I am now an anarchist.
Last edited: