This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Christianity - The Horse that Refuses to Die
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
Ryjacork, the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a troll argument in and of itself. It's a valid example against Christianity through the use of inerrant texts and circular logic. Essentially, the use of the FSM argument is that Christianity has no more claim to truth than the FSM does, which is technically true.
While the people who quote FSM may be trolling, it in and of itself is not trolling. Anyone who states that they believe in FSM is trolling, however.
See right there, millions and millions of people around the world would disagree that the existance of God has a lot more credibility to it than the FSM, and that comparison is offensive. Its the same reason religious people get so offended when atheists claim that the reason they dont beleive in any type of God is because it gos against logic, I mean a thousand years ago human beings probobly thought that flight was illogical too but it clearly isnt. Just because theres something that you dont have knoledge of dosnt mean its against logic, just logic as you perseive it.
Post by
Squishalot
It's not offensive, it just means that you need to show that the FSM argument is incorrect. If there is more credibility to Christianity, there will be reasons why, right? If those reasons can be refuted logically (as we perceive it, because we can't argue by any other means) by FSM, then the extra credibility isn't there.
Also, flight wasn't
illogical
, it was
impossible to fly in a controlled manner
given the technology of the day. Birds flew, you could throw rocks and they would fly through the air, you could shoot people out of catapults and they would fly too (for short periods of time). The principles of flight, an object moving through the air without touching the ground, was perfectly logical a thousand years ago.
Post by
Adamsm
Myself, I don't see
Pastafarian
as all that offensive. Some of the points they raise are good ones; things like intelligent design should not be taught in schools. I have a friend who says he's a Pastafarian...of course, he also applied online and was set up as a Minister....so yeah.
Over all; it's a joke, and an amusing one; gotta learn to have fun with some things.
Post by
Gone
It's not offensive, it just means that you need to show that the FSM argument is incorrect. If there is more credibility to Christianity, there will be reasons why, right? If those reasons can be refuted logically (as we perceive it, because we can't argue by any other means) by FSM, then the extra credibility isn't there.
Ok, well lets say im a Christian and your an Atheist. We both made our life decisoins based on our own logic, therefore my logic is clearly different than yours so we cant cant say logic "as
we
perceive it"
Evidence dosnt just have to be physical, I would say the fact that nobodys life has ever been changed by the FSM alone is difference enough. Going more general many spiritual people have seen miracles or other extrodinary things in the name of God, now some of these incidents have credibility and some do not. Im not a religious scholar so im uncomfortable making this kind of argument, but from my understanding there is a lot of evidence in this world to support the existance of God, and there is none to support the existance of FMS.
Post by
gnomerdon
Let me teach you about the holy spirit.
It has uplifted me to achieve great things. If you wish to enter into a spiritual trance, pray for the holy spirit to enter you and consume your body. After about 50 minutes of meditation, your entire body will be numb and you will feel strength in your legs and arms. Your vision will be blurred due to the tears, your nose will become warm, and your lips will become numb. As the sweat drips down from your head to your neck, you look into the sky and see stars everywhere even in broad daylight. You have entered sage mode. In sage mode, anything is possible. I was able to channel this spiritual energy and use it at the soccer field. I was the goalie and we won our first section championships for soccer against the toughest undefeated team in the league. They couldn't score any goal on me because God was with me. Yes, if you pray hard enough, he will let you win. Just like the athiest son who prayed to god as a joke so that his mother will win the lottery. The following day, she won the lottery and he became a firm believer..... Our God is very biased, but even though he is, he is in charge and you better straighten up. ;D
This is my testament.
Post by
Squishalot
Ok, well lets say im a Christian and your an Atheist. We both made our life decisoins based on our own logic, therefore my logic is clearly different than yours so we cant cant say logic "as we perceive it"
Logic is universal. What you should be saying is that our
experience
is clearly different.
Evidence dosnt just have to be physical, I would say the fact that nobodys life has ever been changed by the FSM alone is difference enough. Going more general many spiritual people have seen miracles or other extrodinary things in the name of God, now some of these incidents have credibility and some do not. Im not a religious scholar so im uncomfortable making this kind of argument, but from my understanding there is a lot of evidence in this world to support the existance of God, and there is none to support the existance of FMS.
You see, this is the problem. Saying that "I haven't done any research, but this is the way it is" isn't sufficient in a debate. If you want anyone to listen to your argument, you need to back it up. Become a quasi-scholar and do some research. You'll find that you will grow as a person in doing so.
Post by
Gone
Ignoring facesmashers trolling...
Ok, well lets say im a Christian and your an Atheist. We both made our life decisoins based on our own logic, therefore my logic is clearly different than yours so we cant cant say logic "as we perceive it"
Logic is universal. What you should be saying is that our
experience
is clearly different.
I have to disagree with that, truth is universal, but whos to say what the truth is. Logic is a human perception limited by our understanding, so one person may think he is looking at something with clear logic, but there could be things beyond his grasp or knoledge that limits him in this. Like I said earlier a thousand years ago human flight was illogical, today its a day to day thing.
You see, this is the problem. Saying that "I haven't done any research, but this is the way it is" isn't sufficient in a debate. If you want anyone to listen to your argument, you need to back it up. Become a quasi-scholar and do some research. You'll find that you will grow as a person in doing so.
Lol no, thats not what I said at all, what I said was I dont know everything, so dont take the things that i say as all the evidence that exists out there, because people who dedicate their entire lives to this subject will obviously know more than me.
Post by
gnomerdon
I wasn't trolling. But you wouldn't believe me, because you've never entered this trance before. If I am lying, I will kill myself.
Post by
Squishalot
I have to disagree with that, truth is universal, but whos to say what the truth is. Logic is a human perception limited by our understanding, so one person may think he is looking at something with clear logic, but there could be things beyond his grasp or knoledge that limits him in this. Like I said earlier a thousand years ago human flight was illogical, today its a day to day thing.
Again, flight wasn't illogical, it wasn't possible, there's a difference. Your argument is illogical. Logic is about whether a statement is correct or not, based on premises. It uses experience, perceptions, but it isn't perception. Either an argument is logical or it is not logical.
Lol no, thats not what I said at all, what I said was I dont know everything, so dont take the things that i say as all the evidence that exists out there, because people who dedicate their entire lives to this subject will obviously know more than me.
Then present the evidence. At the very least, even if you yourself don't do the research, you can present other people's research, just like an atheist might present evolutionary research, even if they themselves didn't do it.
Post by
gnomerdon
I really meant what I said is true. My evolutionary build up consisted of more intense chemicals to allow me to experience such a trance. It is only to be used only when I want to achieve a great challenge and win. Otherwise, it is forbidden and I could suffer the consequences if I do overuse this technique.
Post by
Gone
Your argument is illogical. Logic is about whether a statement is correct or not, based on premises. It uses experience, perceptions, but it isn't perception. Either an argument is logical or it is not logical.
No once again truth is universal, logic is a process by which we can gain truth, each persons logic is can be correct and still reach two different conclusions, because they form their logic based on whatever evidence they have and
how they perceive it.
Then present the evidence. At the very least, even if you yourself don't do the research, you can present other people's research, just like an atheist might present evolutionary research, even if they themselves didn't do it.
Refute the evidence I already put down and ill come up with more.
EDIT: Facesmasher as much as I hate to feed your trolling, were trying to have an actual debate and frankly your not helping your side of this look any better...
Post by
gnomerdon
So now the truth is called trolling? wow....seriously..
GNITE!
Post by
gnomerdon
Oh yeah. I forgot that everyone on the forums are mostly atheists. Of course my life experiences and things that I've gone through as a Christian are insane and unrealistically fake. You know what? **** ***! And good night.
Post by
Squishalot
No once again truth is universal, logic is a process by which we can gain truth, each persons logic is can be correct and still reach two different conclusions, because they form their logic based on whatever evidence they have and how they perceive it.
Not quite correct. Logic consists of taking premises (statements assumed to be true) to derive a new truth statement. You keep saying 'they form their logic based on whatever evidence they have', but really, all that evidence is doing is determining what the premises are, not changing the logic.
Refute the evidence I already put down and ill come up with more.
You haven't presented me with anything. You've just said that people feel that they have witnessed spiritual miracles. People can feel the same way without believing too. It's the same reason how someone who is non-religious can still be scared of ghosts and other paranormal activities. There's nothing really there to refute yet.
Post by
Gone
No once again truth is universal, logic is a process by which we can gain truth, each persons logic is can be correct and still reach two different conclusions, because they form their logic based on whatever evidence they have and how they perceive it.
Not quite correct. Logic consists of taking premises (statements assumed to be true) to derive a new truth statement. You keep saying 'they form their logic based on whatever evidence they have', but really, all that evidence is doing is determining what the premises are, not changing the logic.
There are billions of people all over the world that all form different conclusions, and every one of them uses logic as they see it to reach these conclusions, honestly almost nothing is really universal.
You haven't presented me with anything. You've just said that people feel that they have witnessed spiritual miracles. People can feel the same way without believing too. It's the same reason how someone who is non-religious can still be scared of ghosts and other paranormal activities. There's nothing really there to refute yet.]
And there in lies the problem, the fact that people demand physical evidence to explain the spiritual. Spiritual evidence, concerning the existance of God is no less relivant, albiet harder to explain. I have explained however that people have had their lives changed by God, and nobody has ever had their life altered in any way by the FSM.
EDIT: I actualy am getting pretty tired of this debate, unless somebody comes up with something new im done for the night, were just gonna keep arguing in circles otherwise
Post by
Squishalot
There are billions of people all over the world that all form different conclusions, and every one of them uses logic as they see it to reach these conclusions, honestly almost nothing is really universal.
You're assuming that everyone's logic is correct. Most of the time, it's not.
And there in lies the problem, the fact that people demand physical evidence to explain the spiritual. Spiritual evidence, concerning the existance of God is no less relivant, albiet harder to explain. I have explained however that people have had their lives changed by God, and nobody has ever had their life altered in any way by the FSM.
You're assuming the premise that someone's spiritual evidence concerning the existence of God is less evidence than someone's spiritual void concerning the existence of God.
Post by
Gone
There are billions of people all over the world that all form different conclusions, and every one of them uses logic as they see it to reach these conclusions, honestly almost nothing is really universal.
You're assuming that everyone's logic is correct. Most of the time, it's not.
Actualy I was about to make another EDIT on my last post but you hit on the subject right there. If there is one universal logic that is correct and everybody els is wrong, then who is to say who the authroity is on whos logic is right and whos is wrong? When atheists say that they dont beleive in God because it is against logic, that seems to me like a presumption that their logic is the one that is right.
Again I would call this a univeral "truth" rather than logic, because logic is a tool that we use to come to truth. Two different peopel can use correct logic and reach two different conclusions. Remember logic is a human perception, it can differ between people as much as their taste in music.
EDIT: The very fact that we are both reaching different conclusions here proves my point. Were both obviously thinking our answers through and explaining why we beleive what we beleive, were using logic, and yet we have two different answers.
Post by
Squishalot
When atheists say that they dont beleive in God because it is against logic, that seems to me like a presumption that their logic is the one that is right.
No, their logic is based on a different set of premises to yours.
Two different peopel can use correct logic and reach two different conclusions.
Again, because they have different premises.
Remember logic is a human perception, it can differ between people as much as their taste in music.
Without beating the bush too much, it's because they have different premises. And you can't say use the argument that 'logic is a human perception' to demonstrate that 'logic is a human perception'.
EDIT: The very fact that we are both reaching different conclusions here proves my point. Were both obviously thinking our answers through and explaining why we beleive what we beleive, were using logic, and yet we have two different answers.
Again, we have... you get the point.
Post by
Gone
When atheists say that they dont beleive in God because it is against logic, that seems to me like a presumption that their logic is the one that is right.
No, their logic is based on a different set of premises to yours.
Two different peopel can use correct logic and reach two different conclusions.
Again, because they have different premises.
Remember logic is a human perception, it can differ between people as much as their taste in music.
Without beating the bush too much, it's because they have different premises. And you can't say use the argument that 'logic is a human perception' to demonstrate that 'logic is a human perception'.
Havning different premise is pretty much saying the same thing I said several posts back and it dosnt make either point any less correct. And right now we both have the same premise and the same evidence in front of us, and yet we are reaching two different conclusions, were both obviously smart, were thinking our answers through, we just disagree on how we interperate this evidence.
because they form their logic based on whatever evidence they have and how they perceive it.
Anyway like I said a little while ago, were just arguing in circles now, I think we have to just agree to disagree. Im not gonna argue anymore about the peoples perception of logic.
Post by
Squishalot
were both obviously smart
You see, with due respect, there's an example of our different premises.
Anyway like I said a little while ago, were just arguing in circles now, I think we have to just agree to disagree. Im not gonna argue anymore about the peoples perception of logic.
You raised the perception of logic as a defense against arguments of circular logic. You can't just 'agree to disagree'.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
