No Other Foundation Than That Which Is In Flying Monster Spaghetti

[dank]

You guys realize you are arguing with dank right?

No one wins an argument with dank.... 

That is what religion does to person.

I have never been religious.

But after finding my soul and learning my purpose in life along with the other crazy happenings of 2012, I know what's what.  We all do, deep down.

But Andrew is right, you can debate against my points, but it will not stop me from flying.

[MaxwellsDemon]

FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster.  If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.

If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God;

The point of Russell's teapot is that god doesn't need to be disproven. Either you can directly and scientifically prove his existence, or you must acknowledge that he is a logical fallacy.

The reasoning is that anyone can make any claim regarding non-provable things. You can say there is a god whose existence can not be proven or disproven. I can say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there. Bertrand Russell can say there is a teapot in space, and dank can say that someone at some point has levitated. The point is that either all such non-provable claims are true or they are all false. There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that the existence of god is in some way more likely than the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. And since there can be an infinite number of such claims, we must assume that either all these infinite imaginary things (like gods and monsters and leprechauns and teapots in space) actually exist, or they are all absolutely false.

We obviously can't assume that everything anyone can possibly imagine actually exists. That would probably break the laws of physics, as well as common sense. Therefore we must regard the existence of god (as well as anything else that has been imagined but never proven) as false on logical grounds. There is no need to try to disprove the existence of the infinite number of unproven things. That wouldn't be possible anyway. Rather, the burden is on the person who comes up with these things to prove their existence.

Atheism is not a possibility. It is a logical necessity.

it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism. 

The usefulness of god is irrelevant. Imaginary things don't pop into existence because they are useful. I could sure use about 100,000 BTC in my wallet right now, and yet, the blockchain disagrees...
I am not an atheist because I see no use for god, but because I assume god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

[surebet]

I should be getting a few thousand dollars worth of equipment for my business in the next week.

Business

dank just threw his last 3k at yet another drug venture, hopefully he'll be able to repay squall this time

[dank]

FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster.  If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.

If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God;

The point of Russell's teapot is that god doesn't need to be disproven. Either you can directly and scientifically prove his existence, or you must acknowledge that he is a logical fallacy.

The reasoning is that anyone can make any claim regarding non-provable things. You can say there is a god whose existence can not be proven or disproven. I can say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there. Bertrand Russell can say there is a teapot in space, and dank can say that someone at some point has levitated. The point is that either all such non-provable claims are true or they are all false. There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that the existence of god is in some way more likely than the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. And since there can be an infinite number of such claims, we must assume that either all these infinite imaginary things (like gods and monsters and leprechauns and teapots in space) actually exist, or they are all absolutely false.

We obviously can't assume that everything anyone can possibly imagine actually exists. That would probably break the laws of physics, as well as common sense. Therefore we must regard the existence of god (as well as anything else that has been imagined but never proven) as false on logical grounds. There is no need to try to disprove the existence of the infinite number of unproven things. That wouldn't be possible anyway. Rather, the burden is on the person who comes up with these things to prove their existence.

Atheism is not a possibility. It is a logical necessity.

it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism. 

The usefulness of god is irrelevant. Imaginary things don't pop into existence because they are useful. I could sure use about 100,000 BTC in my wallet right now, and yet, the blockchain disagrees...
I am not an atheist because I see no use for god, but because I assume god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

And when you add the variable of an infinite universe, it's not only probably but definite that a FSM god, a teapot god, and any other thing you can imagine exists.

There are infinite dimensions right where you are, it's up to you to tune your mind to those frequencies, and anything you imagine will manifest in reality.

Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.

[surebet]

Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.

Did you forget the investor's pitch you tried with me already?

[edd]

Because you all think the flying spaghetti monster debases the reality of god, when it only supports it.

It's not really an argument against God, but against organized religion.

Of course it's an argument against god...
The FSM is just a rehash of Russell's teapot.
It's the best, the oldest, and quite possibly the only argument against god.

FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster.  If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.

If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God; at such a point, if you abandon organized religion, it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism.  Can God appear as a FSM?  I don't see why not.  Is it likely?  No.  Has God been disproven?  In his common incarnations, yes, but not entirely; the idea has no effect on someone who believes in what can't be true, as long as there is a feeling of existence.

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (or Pastafarianism) is an argument against teaching Intelligent Design as an "alternative theory" to evolution in science classes. Once you open the door to considering one "theory" that has no scientific evidence to back it up, you have to admit that any theory is just as likely (although the CoFSM has graphs, so is therefore the most scientific Intelligent Design theory yet).

[Mike Christ]

snip

Thanks for keying me in; however, how does this change the mind of a person who believes in God?

[dank]

Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.

Did you forget the investor's pitch you tried with me already?

Yes and I remembered and this is not related.  This is a webular based business.

[Ekaros]

Now that I pondered FSM even deeper I discovered the truth. FSM is the bitcoin. It's clear to me now the noodly appendages are the transaction chains and the meatballs are the blocks. So in reality FSM gave us his appearance to use in form of bitcoin.

[MaxwellsDemon]

Thanks for keying me in; however, how does this change the mind of a person who believes in God?

As you can see here:

And when you add the variable of an infinite universe, it's not only probably but definite that a FSM god, a teapot god, and any other thing you can imagine exists.

There are infinite dimensions right where you are, it's up to you to tune your mind to those frequencies, and anything you imagine will manifest in reality.

Nothing changes the mind of a person who believes 

[MaxwellsDemon]

Now that I pondered FSM even deeper I discovered the truth. FSM is the bitcoin. It's clear to me now the noodly appendages are the transaction chains and the meatballs are the blocks. So in reality FSM gave us his appearance to use in form of bitcoin.

lol 

Does that mean pirateat40 lowered global temperatures???

[edd]

Now that I pondered FSM even deeper I discovered the truth. FSM is the bitcoin. It's clear to me now the noodly appendages are the transaction chains and the meatballs are the blocks. So in reality FSM gave us his appearance to use in form of bitcoin.

lol 

Does that mean pirateat40 lowered global temperatures???

He wasn't a true pirate; he was a false profit.

[surebet]

Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.

Did you forget the investor's pitch you tried with me already?

Yes and I remembered and this is not related.  This is a webular based business.

So I'm guessing you still spent the 3k$ you had instead of you know, paying Squall. Also what the hell is a webular business?

[Vod]

Today is Sunday.  Do any other atheists feel the need to gather together and reassure each other we're not crazy?  I sure don't. 

[MaxwellsDemon]

He wasn't a true pirate; he was a false profit.

Pun of the week award 

[dank]

Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.

Did you forget the investor's pitch you tried with me already?

Yes and I remembered and this is not related.  This is a webular based business.

So I'm guessing you still spent the 3k$ you had instead of you know, paying Squall. Also what the hell is a webular business?

It will be invested.  Webular based, web based.  I like to make words sound cooler sometimes.

He wasn't a true pirate; he was a false profit.

Pun of the week award 

I just got it lol.

[Mike Christ]

Nothing changes the mind of a person who believes 

Ha ha well, you may have a point there.  However, I bring this up because, though these arguments make sense to us, they don't seem to have an effect on the people they're geared toward; someone who believes in God may not be completely irrational, but they are at least irrational toward the idea of God; so if the only use of an argument is to appeal to someone who already has a foundation in logical reasoning, thereby allowing the individual doubt on the existence of God, is it valuable?  If not, it would seem, then, that a focus on refuting God is not important; a focus on cultivating rational thinkers matters more.  It's like speaking two different languages; one speaks logic, the other doesn't.  For any of this to make sense to a believer of God, they first need to understand why rational thought is preferable to faith, and if they are rational thinkers, they will already agree with the argument.

This is why I bring up the idea of God being useful; if people can find a use in God, for whatever purpose, and they're surrounded by people who also believe God has a use, then God will continue to exist outside the purview of rationals; if rationals are a minority, then it is far more common for God to exist than for God to not exist; whether or not we can argue God's existence, if people don't have rational thought as their fundamental interpretation of the world, it doesn't matter if what is said makes logical sense if it cannot appeal to the people who are going to wind up changing your life in some way or another, whether through politics or otherwise.  Because of this, the only way to stop the existence of God--and he does exist, for God has and is making a huge impact on the world, albeit only through his believers--is with secular rationalism, thereby ending God's usefulness; a person can't get away with murder "in the name of God" if society doesn't believe there is a God, nor can a person rule by divine right, nor can a person ask forgiveness an infinite amount of times, knowing they must be forgiven for they are God-fearing; though we, i.e. rationals, can argue God isn't real, he's very much alive and well in his believers and always willing to exert his omnipotence--and by that I mean, people are with God as their backing.  There is no use in pointing out God's existence, then; there is only a use in helping people to accept a rational mindset; it is from there they can then understand God's existence.

[MaxwellsDemon]

Nothing changes the mind of a person who believes 

Ha ha well, you may have a point there.  However, I bring this up because, though these arguments make sense to us, they don't seem to have an effect on the people they're geared toward; someone who believes in God may not be completely irrational, but they are at least irrational toward the idea of God; so if the only use of an argument is to appeal to someone who already has a foundation in logical reasoning, thereby allowing the individual doubt on the existence of God, is it valuable?  If not, it would seem, then, that a focus on refuting God is not important; a focus on cultivating rational thinkers matters more.  It's like speaking two different languages; one speaks logic, the other doesn't.  For any of this to make sense to a believer of God, they first need to understand why rational thought is preferable to faith, and if they are rational thinkers, they will already agree with the argument.

This is why I bring up the idea of God being useful; if people can find a use in God, for whatever purpose, and they're surrounded by people who also believe God has a use, then God will continue to exist outside the purview of rationals; if rationals are a minority, then it is far more common for God to exist than for God to not exist; whether or not we can argue God's existence, if people don't have rational thought as their fundamental interpretation of the world, it doesn't matter if what is said makes logical sense if it cannot appeal to the people who are going to wind up changing your life in some way or another, whether through politics or otherwise.  Because of this, the only way to stop the existence of God--and he does exist, for God has and is making a huge impact on the world, albeit only through his believers--is with secular rationalism, thereby ending God's usefulness; a person can't get away with murder "in the name of God" if society doesn't believe there is a God, nor can a person rule by divine right, nor can a person ask forgiveness an infinite amount of times, knowing they must be forgiven for they are God-fearing; though we, i.e. rationals, can argue God isn't real, he's very much alive and well in his believers and always willing to exert his omnipotence--and by that I mean, people are with God as their backing.  There is no use in pointing out God's existence, then; there is only a use in helping people to accept a rational mindset; it is from there they can then understand God's existence.

I completely agree. I just wish I knew how to get people to be rational about their beliefs 


One caveat though: I still don't think usefulness is relevant. God doesn't need to be useful to persist in people's minds. God is a meme, perhaps the most powerful meme ever invented, and memes are like viruses. They propagate themselves by convincing infected minds to transfer the meme to uninfected minds. Religion is so powerful because it is a meme with a built-in replication device: one of the core tenets of almost every religion is that a religious person must do everything is his power to convince more people to believe what he believes (and occasionally kill people who don't). Religious people are brainwashed from a young age that they must never stop believing, and get others to believe as well.
Therefore, god can cling to people's minds without serving any positive use. In fact, I would say all "uses" of god are imagined by believers in order to rationalize their irrational beliefs. God doesn't need to be useful to exist just like viruses are not useful for our cells.

[surebet]

It will be invested.  Webular based, web based.  I like to make words sound cooler sometimes.

So buying and/or selling near legal drug analogs online?

[mintyfreshblast]

“Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles. Thy noodle come, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan. Give us this day, our garlic bread, …and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trample on our lawns. And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza, for thine is the meatball, the noodle, and the sauce, forever and ever. Ramen.”

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Holy Prayer – Unknown

Now that's a religion I can get into!