So this isn't a real religion!?

The place for general discussion about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and most things related to Him.

Moderator: All Things Mods

MPTrooper

Postby MPTrooper » Thu May 24, 2007 11:29 pm

DAK wrote:
EarthRise wrote:
DAK wrote:Neither is believing a book that says that I should be dead, now is it?


Now where in the Bible does Jesus Christ demand your death?

Or are you confusing Christianity as a religion with Christianity as a weapon at the hands of extremists?


Ummm...I never said Jesus did...it's actually in the old testament. It says that anyone who breaks the ten commandments should be put to death, and I do just that every Saturday, along with almost everyone on Earth.


Can you please quote the scripture that came from? Also be sure to add what Bible you are useing. Thanks :)

DAK
Ziti Zealot
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 12:12 am
Location: New Jersey, United States

Postby DAK » Thu May 24, 2007 11:50 pm

MPTrooper wrote:
DAK wrote:
EarthRise wrote:
DAK wrote:Neither is believing a book that says that I should be dead, now is it?


Now where in the Bible does Jesus Christ demand your death?

Or are you confusing Christianity as a religion with Christianity as a weapon at the hands of extremists?


Ummm...I never said Jesus did...it's actually in the old testament. It says that anyone who breaks the ten commandments should be put to death, and I do just that every Saturday, along with almost everyone on Earth.


Can you please quote the scripture that came from? Also be sure to add what Bible you are useing. Thanks :)


http://godisimaginary.com/video2.htm Just watch this video.
:worship::worship::worship::worship::fsm:
:worship::worship::worship::worship:
:worship::worship::worship::worship:
:worship::worship::worship::worship:

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Fri May 25, 2007 12:10 am

DAK, the very fact that most of the United States - a Christian population to a large extent - doesn't observe the idea that Sabbath-violations are tantamount to asking for a quick and morally-righteous death should be testament in itself that the Bible is a guidebook for ethics, not an ultimatum for civilization at large.
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin

DAK
Ziti Zealot
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 12:12 am
Location: New Jersey, United States

Postby DAK » Fri May 25, 2007 12:21 am

EarthRise wrote:DAK, the very fact that most of the United States - a Christian population to a large extent - doesn't observe the idea that Sabbath-violations are tantamount to asking for a quick and morally-righteous death should be testament in itself that the Bible is a guidebook for ethics, not an ultimatum for civilization at large.


Well it's a pretty bad guidebook for ethics.
:worship::worship::worship::worship::fsm:

:worship::worship::worship::worship:

:worship::worship::worship::worship:

:worship::worship::worship::worship:

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Fri May 25, 2007 12:22 am

DAK wrote:
EarthRise wrote:DAK, the very fact that most of the United States - a Christian population to a large extent - doesn't observe the idea that Sabbath-violations are tantamount to asking for a quick and morally-righteous death should be testament in itself that the Bible is a guidebook for ethics, not an ultimatum for civilization at large.


Well it's a pretty bad guidebook for ethics.


Depends on what parts you are reading. Several of the Ten Commandments are rather intelligent, would you not concur?
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin

MPTrooper

Postby MPTrooper » Fri May 25, 2007 1:05 am

::yawn::

That's the best you got? Come on Dak, the only people that video would threaten are those who hold a Bible Literelist POV.

I don't, hence it does nothing for me. Got anything else?

Barti Ddu
Ziti Zealot
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:01 am
Location: London

Postby Barti Ddu » Fri May 25, 2007 2:08 am

MPTrooper,

MPTrooper wrote:Then obviously I would see no reason to continue any kind of discussion with you and ignore you and whatever points you where going to make.


That’s fair enough - your prerogative. But remember we’re still talking hypothetically here as I don’t believe I actually have been dismissive of your faith as of yet even though you accused me of arrogance for doing so.

Barti Ddu wrote:‘I believe generally [emphasis added], that religion has some detrimental effect on all individuals who have faith...


I did not say religion necessarily has a negative influence on every single practitioner. I didn’t say you were such an instance thereby insulting your religion - so it was you who jumped to conclusions and threw that first ‘punch’. But I see no gain in reciprocating. :D

MPTrooper wrote:You can't equate religious faith to scientific pursuits. Science can be proven or disproven quit easily. Cold hard facts can be shown as to why something is or isn't.


Now finally we seem to be finding some common ground! Funnily enough, that’s exactly where I was intending to go next with my argument too. God or any other ‘supernatural-type-word-which-mean-something-to-some’ isn’t a concept in the normal sense of an entity which can be objectively discussed or disputed.

MPTrooper wrote:Just because I have faith in my God doesn't mean I can't debate.


Here I’m not as convinced. I’d have a go at arguing that it’s not technically possible to ‘debate’ about God. Of course you can disagree with someone and exchange vague ideas and the like for eternity if you like but unless there’s a common ground of actual concepts, reason’s an optional extra so I can’t see how the discussion could actually lead to anything constructive.

MPTrooper wrote:You can't equate religious faith to scientific pursuits.


I’m back with you here though. In effect, what you appear to be saying is that debate and criticism using the traditional logic/reason/proof etc. level playing field that applies to science/knowledge doesn’t apply to faith. So anyone who disagrees with you about your faith and would like to discuss it needs to:
a. not say anything against it otherwise you’ll take it as personal offence;
b. agree to leave the level playing field and hold the discussion somewhere in an unshaped, foggy, ‘place’ where words can mean whatever you want them to and where it’s a free-for-all where non-sequiturs and anti-concepts are to be considered as valid as anything real.

That’s not somewhere I’d chose to go as you could (notice I didn't say 'would' - it's not an accusation) always win there. And this is the reason, I believe religion has managed to survive the advance of knowledge in every other field. It’s got its own rule book which, historically, anyone who wants to play, has to abide by.

So there we have it. Both in agreement there’s nothing to gain by us both discussing faith :) Fortunately we managed to cover a substantial amount before getting to this dead end so thanks for that.

It does leave a bit of a problem for me as to what hope have I of convincing anyone to leave their faith behind and join the rest of us. I’ll have to have a think about that one. Maybe a parody could help!

MPTrooper wrote: Hell Earth Rise is as hard core an atheist I have ever meet and I still look forward to debating with him...

Yes, I appear to be holding him in higher esteem with virtually every post of his too, though of course not agreeing on everything :) . I take my hat off to him for going there with you as I can’t see how it could ever get anywhere with you and me.

RAmen,

Barti Ddu

MPTrooper

Postby MPTrooper » Fri May 25, 2007 2:30 am

The reason he and I get along is that we don't try to convert each other.

That's about it in a nutshell.

User avatar
DanWiley
Ziti Zealot
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:14 am

Postby DanWiley » Fri May 25, 2007 12:12 pm

Well it's a pretty bad guidebook for ethics.


He's right you know, I was using it to find my way around Harlow once. It was terrible.

<gets coat/>
If ignorance is bliss, why are so few people happy?

DAK
Ziti Zealot
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 12:12 am
Location: New Jersey, United States

Postby DAK » Fri May 25, 2007 5:19 pm

EarthRise wrote:
DAK wrote:
EarthRise wrote:DAK, the very fact that most of the United States - a Christian population to a large extent - doesn't observe the idea that Sabbath-violations are tantamount to asking for a quick and morally-righteous death should be testament in itself that the Bible is a guidebook for ethics, not an ultimatum for civilization at large.


Well it's a pretty bad guidebook for ethics.


Depends on what parts you are reading. Several of the Ten Commandments are rather intelligent, would you not concur?


Yes, but so was Hitler. Does that mean that he was a good person?

Anyway, some doesn't cut it. That's like saying this list of rules is logical:

1.) no violence
2.) no stealing
3.) no raping
4.) no free will

See that list. Three out of four are good rules. Does that mean that people should live by them? I know I wouldn't.
:worship::worship::worship::worship::fsm:

:worship::worship::worship::worship:

:worship::worship::worship::worship:

:worship::worship::worship::worship:

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Fri May 25, 2007 9:33 pm

DAK wrote:Yes, but so was Hitler. Does that mean that he was a good person?


You are missing the point utterly. I did not say the Bible is a faultless piece of literature, nor did I say that Hitler was a wonderful example of the human species. But some of what Hitler said was rational, and some of what the Bible says is rational. You'll get to realize that eventually.

What I did say is, essentially, that much of the US population takes much of the Bible as a metaphor. What I also said was that some portions of the Bible are very logical.

Unless you would like to disagree and tell me that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a brutally ridiculous addition, and you should like to see it revoked.

Anyway, some doesn't cut it. That's like saying this list of rules is logical:

1.) no violence
2.) no stealing
3.) no raping
4.) no free will

See that list. Three out of four are good rules. Does that mean that people should live by them? I know I wouldn't.


You're still not following what I'm saying. But nonetheless, the point remains that parts of the Bible aren't enforced.

Just like parts of your list are illogical. See how neatly that works out?
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin

Barti Ddu
Ziti Zealot
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 1:01 am
Location: London

Postby Barti Ddu » Sat May 26, 2007 6:27 am

EarthRise wrote: the point remains that parts of the Bible aren't enforced.


...for the time being. But if your (as in the US's) Religious Right keep chipping away at the secularization of your country...


EarthRise wrote:Unless you would like to disagree and tell me that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a brutally ridiculous addition


Obviously not a ridiculous guideline in the general, but in order for it to be useful or translated into law we have to apply a lot of reason to establish context and exceptions (e.g. that it applies to the killing of people not of weeds in your garden, and that there will be circumstances - e.g. self-defense or war where killing can be moral).

But if we need reason to make any sense of the 'raw material' (religious derivation) of ethics, why not start ethical inquiry from scratch using reason? Why bother depending on morals-on-a-plate (some of which, most would agree, are ridiculous) to start with?

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Sat May 26, 2007 1:32 pm

Barti Ddu wrote:
EarthRise wrote: the point remains that parts of the Bible aren't enforced.


...for the time being. But if your (as in the US's) Religious Right keep chipping away at the secularization of your country...


Fortunately, we have people like me, as well as a population of Christians, that would die to prevent that from happening.

EarthRise wrote:Unless you would like to disagree and tell me that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a brutally ridiculous addition


Obviously not a ridiculous guideline in the general, but in order for it to be useful or translated into law we have to apply a lot of reason to establish context and exceptions (e.g. that it applies to the killing of people not of weeds in your garden, and that there will be circumstances - e.g. self-defense or war where killing can be moral).

But if we need reason to make any sense of the 'raw material' (religious derivation) of ethics, why not start ethical inquiry from scratch using reason? Why bother depending on morals-on-a-plate (some of which, most would agree, are ridiculous) to start with?


Does there need to be specifications to "Thou shalt not kill"? You know, if you were to lay out exactly what it means - kill only insects, not arachnids; kill between this time and this time; kill only certain types of people - then we would have more problems, not fewer, preventing the involvement of the Commandments as law. The idea of "Thou shalt not kill" can easily fit into the reasoning of anyone who decides to contemplate it when taken as a general rule of thumb.

Now, that being said, I agree, ethics need be considered from a reasoning standpoint, and not a religious one, in a fundamentally secular society such as the US. But, as I said before, why can't we consider that some of the morals in the Bible aren't derived directly from biological and social ethics? We study the Bible, we can determine those that apply to modern-day society - such as killing, theft, the like - and ditch those that are products of the times - such as only eat a few types of insects, and never engage in homosexual behavior.
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin

User avatar
Captain Noobhead
Cavatappi Cabin Boy
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 2:13 am
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Postby Captain Noobhead » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:33 am

Faith is faith. There's nothing that defines a "real" religion and a "fake" religion. :twisted:

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:35 am

Captain Noobhead wrote:Faith is faith. There's nothing that defines a "real" religion and a "fake" religion. :twisted:


Unless the adherents of the religion are understood to deny its validity.
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin


Return to “All Things FSM”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests