Thread: Atheists Discrimination

Originally Posted by Howie

I don't see what else he would need to say.

It's no different than a religious zealot spewing the bibles rhetoric over and over again.
Wait.... that is until they decide to rephrase one of the fables to fit their liking.

Maybe it is threatening to have an unwavering argument!

Are you calling Dawkins a zealot? If you are, I tend to agree. I think he is better than a religious zealot when it comes to science, but he's no different than the bible thumpers when it comes to religious matters. He has an opinion, and anyone who doesn't share it is irrational, according to him.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I expect that this is exactly how people felt in response to Galileo.

You are comparing Howie to Galileo after he likened Dawkins to a religious zealot?

What?

Originally Posted by Howie

That's the point!! He uses a ridiculous comparison to bring to light a very valid question.
Why is the belief of a flying spaghetti monster any more or less absurd than any other type of God?
Why is it that at one time the majority would believe in Zeus, but not now? Don't you wonder the same about Christianity in 100 years?

The flying spaghetti monster belief is absurd in that it has ZERO relevance to our universe. The whole idea behind God (generally speaking) is that God is believed to have at least created the universe. There's a whoooooole lot of relevance to us there.
Flying spaghetti monster: no purpose whatsoever.
God: has a purpose.
So, naturally you can see that you'd need a better, more logical argument to counter the belief in God, something that has been done in the real world.

And don't forget that Zeus came with a number of other gods as well, it was a polytheistic system of beliefs. I therefor don't compare it with Christianity, although there are plenty of other problems I could point out about the religion.

Why is it that atheists have to blindly defend this man whenever anyone gives him any sort of criticism?

To be honest you should give this thread a reread.

P.S. no self respecting evolutionary biologist and atheism advocate should ever have to mention the flying spaghetti monster in order to make their point.

I think it's quite a good analogy for laypeople personally.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Are you calling Dawkins a zealot?

Yaaa....I guess I would be.

Two years old.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

The flying spaghetti monster belief is absurd in that it has ZERO relevance to our universe.

No.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the entire universe "after drinking heavily."

"after drinking heavily."

Haha that's precious.

Reminds me of Douglas.

Originally Posted by Serkat

You are comparing Howie to Galileo after he likened Dawkins to a religious zealot?

I am somehow not surprised that you completely do not understand the point. Please consider it again and let me know what you think before anymore digression occurs.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

The flying spaghetti monster belief is absurd in that it has ZERO relevance to our universe. The whole idea behind God (generally speaking) is that God is believed to have at least created the universe. There's a whoooooole lot of relevance to us there.

The reasoning is analogous. You obviously do not understand the FSM argument.

Why do you not believe in fairies? How about the flying teapot in space..? You cannot disprove them. How about my friend Captain Howdy? Only I can see him. I know he exists. You cannot disprove him; does that mean he is real?

So, naturally you can see that you'd need a better, more logical argument to counter the belief in God, something that has been done in the real world.

Please read the argument again and more carefully before humiliating yourself in mis-interpretation.

And don't forget that Zeus came with a number of other gods as well, it was a polytheistic system of beliefs. I therefor don't compare it with Christianity, although there are plenty of other problems I could point out about the religion.

Can you disprove that Zeus is real? How about my friend Captain Howdy?

~

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The central belief is that there is an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster, who created the entire universe "after drinking heavily."

The prime difference, again, is that everything about the idea of God (the base characteristics of a monotheistic God) has some sort of purpose in regards to our universe. There is a logical argument FOR the existence of God because of this. If there is a logical argument for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster who created the universe, please tell me Serkat.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Why do you not believe in fairies? How about the flying teapot in space..? You cannot disprove them. How about my friend Captain Howdy? Only I can see him. I know he exists. You cannot disprove him; does that mean he is real?

My belief for God does not come out of a book, it comes from personal reasoning. I do not believe these other things exist 'in our universe' because they have no known reason to exist 'in our universe'. I believe that everything, in some shape or form, CAN exist somewhere, but they do not have to exist within the same universe. I believe that possibilities are virtually limitless.

Originally Posted by Xei

To be honest you should give this thread a reread.

Why, to find the one post you made agreeing that Dawkins is unoriginal? I read it, thanks.

Originally Posted by Xei

I think it's quite a good analogy for laypeople personally.

I don't. It could easily work against it original intent, since it was obviously imagined by a human being in order to argue against religion. The issue is that you believe that all other religions were invented by humans in a similar fashion. The average layperson does not believe this, so the point would be lost on them.

It also ignores the fact that those humans who you think invented each of their religions almost definitely believed what they were writing when they did it. Whether god reached down and physically forced their hand or they simply felt a moment or a series of moments of inspiration that they thought was beyond them doesn't really matter.

It also ignores the possibility that human's ability to imagine and create depictions of divine beings might be connected to what god really is. Perhaps the fact that humans imagined god doesn't necessarily serve as an argument against god's existence.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

The flying spaghetti monster belief is absurd in that it has ZERO relevance to our universe. The whole idea behind God (generally speaking) is that God is believed to have at least created the universe. There's a whoooooole lot of relevance to us there.
Flying spaghetti monster: no purpose whatsoever.
God: has a purpose.
So, naturally you can see that you'd need a better, more logical argument to counter the belief in God, something that has been done in the real world.

And don't forget that Zeus came with a number of other gods as well, it was a polytheistic system of beliefs. I therefor don't compare it with Christianity, although there are plenty of other problems I could point out about the religion.

So who are you to decide to give credence over one god or another? You know as well as I do that Dawkin's reference to The FSM is to make a point.
You begin to see a flaw in your argument already, you have given Zeus more credibility the a flying spaghetti monster. Why... because they had no answer for lightning or thunder? Just as you do not have an answer to why you exist. An answer you need so you manifest a god to answer those questions.

As far as considering Dawkins a zealot. If I consider one of religion a zealot, I would have to also consider an athiest fanatic one too.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

The prime difference, again, is that everything about the idea of God (the base characteristics of a monotheistic God) has some sort of purpose in regards to our universe. There is a logical argument FOR the existence of God because of this. If there is a logical argument for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster who created the universe, please tell me Serkat.

Just look around you. You probably have pasta in your cupboards right now. How could humans come up with the idea of pasta if the Flying spaghetti monster hadn't first embodied the pasta ideal?


p.s. O'nus, you knew this thread was just going to turn into a atheism vs theism debate right?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I am somehow not surprised that you completely do not understand the point. Please consider it again and let me know what you think before anymore digression occurs.

Please do take a second to explain it to me.

Just look around you. You probably have pasta in your cupboards right now. How could humans come up with the idea of pasta if the Flying spaghetti monster hadn't first embodied the pasta ideal?

+50

Why, to find the one post you made agreeing that Dawkins is unoriginal? I read it, thanks.

So your blanket statement about all atheists was a lie. Yes?

Carou also laughed at him.

I don't. It could easily work against it original intent, since it was obviously imagined by a human being in order to argue against religion. The issue is that you believe that all other religions were invented by humans in a similar fashion. The average layperson does not believe this, so the point would be lost on them.

It also ignores the fact that those humans who you think invented each of their religions almost definitely believed what they were writing when they did it. Whether god reached down and physically forced their hand or they simply felt a moment or a series of moments of inspiration that they thought was beyond them doesn't really matter.

It also ignores the possibility that human's ability to imagine and create depictions of divine beings might be connected to what god really is. Perhaps the fact that humans imagined god doesn't necessarily serve as an argument against god's existence.

But it's really not about any of these issues. It's an analogy focused solely on the issue perfectly illustrated by Carl Sagan: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see where the analogy fails.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

The prime difference, again, is that everything about the idea of God (the base characteristics of a monotheistic God) has some sort of purpose in regards to our universe. There is a logical argument FOR the existence of God because of this. If there is a logical argument for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster who created the universe, please tell me Serkat.

Oh hey, this guy I know named Captain Howdy created the universe. Unfortunately, only I can see him. He has unlimited power and abilities. You can't disprove him. Thus, he exists and created everything.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't. It could easily work against it original intent, since it was obviously imagined by a human being in order to argue against religion. The issue is that you believe that all other religions were invented by humans in a similar fashion. The average layperson does not believe this, so the point would be lost on them.

It can easily be argued that religion was created by man as a means to simply understand their world. The means of how the idea come to be does not prove or necessarily disprove anything. This is really a tangent now.

It also ignores the fact that those humans who you think invented each of their religions almost definitely believed what they were writing when they did it. Whether god reached down and physically forced their hand or they simply felt a moment or a series of moments of inspiration that they thought was beyond them doesn't really matter.

My friend Timmy writes in his journal that Captain Howdy visits him every night. Does this reinforce the existence of Captain Howdy?

It also ignores the possibility that human's ability to imagine and create depictions of divine beings might be connected to what god really is. Perhaps the fact that humans imagined god doesn't necessarily serve as an argument against god's existence.

This is how you can filter out fundamentalist Atheists.

It is, perhaps, a means to giving way to the humans the idea of God. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing.

I will not argue this, it is plausible. That is all it is for now though, and I won't deny the plausibility. I think we can agree on this as you worded it rather civil - another reason I consider you intelligent.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Just look around you. You probably have pasta in your cupboards right now. How could humans come up with the idea of pasta if the Flying spaghetti monster hadn't first embodied the pasta ideal?

I like how you are fringing on epistemology. A fundamentalist Atheist will continue arguing with you here - but that is where I respectfully draw the line.

p.s. O'nus, you knew this thread was just going to turn into a atheism vs theism debate right?

Let us try to salvage...

Originally Posted by Serkat

Please do take a second to explain it to me.

No no.. it's ok.. nevermind. I apologize. Just leave it there.

Let us put it this way - even if we had fundamental proof of Gods non-existence, it is likely that people would become very upset and angry anyway.

~

Originally Posted by invader_tech

The prime difference, again, is that everything about the idea of God (the base characteristics of a monotheistic God) has some sort of purpose in regards to our universe. There is a logical argument FOR the existence of God because of this. If there is a logical argument for the existence of a flying spaghetti monster who created the universe, please tell me Serkat.



My belief for God does not come out of a book, it comes from personal reasoning. I do not believe these other things exist 'in our universe' because they have no known reason to exist 'in our universe'. I believe that everything, in some shape or form, CAN exist somewhere, but they do not have to exist within the same universe. I believe that possibilities are virtually limitless.

I know I'm not Serkat, but everything about the FSM has purpose as well. Along with creating the universe, the FSM actually uses his noodley appendages to keep us on the ground. They are invisible, and they are the cause of gravity. In a specific area in Asia I believe where there is lots of pasta, the people are shorter there and it is because that is where the FSM is primarily located. He holds people closer to the ground because of love, you see.

Originally Posted by O'nus

My friend Timmy writes in his journal that Captain Howdy visits him every night. Does this reinforce the existence of Captain Howdy?

Yes.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I like how you are fringing on epistemology. A fundamentalist Atheist will continue arguing with you here - but that is where I respectfully draw the line.

Oh come on, O'nus. I was poking fun at Invader Tech because he was doing a piss poor job arguing against the use of the FSM and obviously hasn't read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There is no need for everything to be strictly serios bizniz.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Yes.

Then every imaginable thing is objectively real?

I think I am God.

Now what?

(I'm pretty sure I know how you feel about this, but it gets the point out the way for others)

~

Originally Posted by Howie

So who are you to decide to give credence over one god or another?

Because I personally define THE God as being different from a god, and because I've taken the time to argue it's existence. That is why.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Oh hey, this guy I know named Captain Howdy created the universe. Unfortunately, only I can see him. He has unlimited power and abilities. You can't disprove him. Thus, he exists and created everything.

Making up an argument that I do not accept as being my own... I find it hard to believe that you prefer discussing over 'fighting' with me. The whole idea with discussing is that maybe you can either a) enlighten people or b) rework your own arguments. It doesn't work if you make up the other person's argument. I don't see any point in trying to be civil with you if all you want to show me is hostility.

Discrimination in any form is wrong. Atheists don't harm society by believing there is no god. The actions that are caused because of a belief, can be questionable. This is similar discrimination of theists. Yay for ignorance.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Because I personally define THE God as being different from a god, and because I've taken the time to argue it's existence. That is why.

Then your God is relative and based entirely on your own personal conjecture - nothing more than that. That does not mean it is real.

Making up an argument that I do not accept as being my own... I find it hard to believe that you prefer discussing over 'fighting' with me. The whole idea with discussing is that maybe you can either a) enlighten people or b) rework your own arguments. It doesn't work if you make up the other person's argument. I don't see any point in trying to be civil with you if all you want to show me is hostility.

I am not being hostile, you asked to set forth the argument as it would be important for the universe, so I did. It is the exact same reasoning and the exact same argument only I have added to it because you asked me to. It does not change the argument... actually it only makes it stronger.

I am trying to discuss with you, you're not actually offering anything substantial other than attacking. You see, the onus is on you to prove that a God exists - not me. I do not need to prove anything. That is the point of the FSM.

~

Originally Posted by O'nus

Then your God is relative and based entirely on your own personal conjecture - nothing more than that. That does not mean it is real.

It would be relative at least until I took the time to describe it to everyone. And it's not based entirely on my own 'personal conjecture'. That's why I ask people why they do or do not believe in whatever god or no god or what have you - for the sake of developing my own truth. I'm never closed to feedback.

And I never claimed my idea was true, as it cannot be proven. But I'm not the one bashing your beliefs, or trying to assert my beliefs onto you. And I don't have to prove anything, as again, i'm not attempting to force my ideas down your throat. I have my own beliefs, and I have no problem that you have your own. When I ask you why you think the way you do, it's not because I believe you're responsible for explaining it to me, but so that I can gain some insight as well.

I'll make my own thread in due time as to why I think the way I do, if you would please you that much.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Because I personally define THE God as being different from a god, and because I've taken the time to argue it's existence. That is why.

But don't you agree that any one who whole-heartedly believes in THEIR own perception of "the god", feels the same way you do?