False. You need to read the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster before claiming to know anything about his Holy Noodliness. Sound familiar? Frequently claimed by those who follow the teachings of the Bible. The Flying spaghetti monster can be seen all around us holding us down with his noodly appendages (incorrectly referred to as gravity). The flying spaghetti monster is no mere act of comedy either, he is the true benevolent God. If I believe in the Flying spaghetti monster, I challenge you to disprove my belief. Your first quote refers to proof of His existence. In His Holy Noodliness eye's, Pirates are the epitome of Pastafarianess and therefore his most respected followers. The graph you refer to shows that as global temperature has increased over the past several centuries, the population of pirates has decreased. This clearly shows an inverse relationship caused by the the flying spaghetti monster becoming displeased at the loss of pirates in the world. I believe your second quote is a review/quote/comment/something from someone who does not believe in the FSM. The same comments could have been made about Christianity during its inception. In the beginning there was only the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He has always existed and will always exist. He has always known spaghetti and therefore spaghetti has always been known. Man may not have discovered spaghetti as the consumable food until many eons later, but He has always known of its wonderful existence. I defy you to disprove belief in this.
I would help you out Diablo but this will be a good life experience for you. You get to see the hell an atheist goes through. Not in exact proportions of course. Because Christians have the ability to fall into agnosticism at any moment. FSM is a bit different. But this will show you the average response you could expect from a "deeply religious" individual. So without further adieu; Diablo, how can you question the holy of holies? Do you not have eyes to see the world for what it is? It is too complex to be random. Life couldn't have formed from dirt or a rock. Is your dad a rock? No he's spaghetti and guess what, god made us in his own image so you know he exists. FSM is real because if we read the gospel of FSM it says so. How do we know the gospel of FSM was written by the lord of hosts? Because it says so you twat and the book that says he wrote it says he exists, so he must. You are too ignorant and you hate god and italian food. You're just another closed-minded disbelieve unwilling to open his eyes to the truth! THAT FSM IS REAL A JESUS AND MUHAMMAD ARE GAY AND LOVE TERRORISTS. How sad, you live a life of despair not believing in FSM. If only you believed you would know what true happiness is. Pasta primavera awaits those who do not believe. Your day of judgement will come you poor poor fool. >> Now I know that all seemed annoying and if you managed to read it (i wouldn't have) you probably feel like I'm exaggerating or that I was purposefully trying to be annoying. These are the types of responses you get on average as an atheist. The same content just in different orders. Its the same nonsensical bull crap that plagues humanity. Let's continue the conversation: Response; Wasn't spaghetti made by man? And really FSM is only a few years old whereas real religions are much much older. You don't need FSM to be a good or happy person. Why don't you just stop being so stupid and find something better to do with your time? Counter Response; OH lol! You poor soul. Let me quote you something from the internet. >>(Links to the equivalent of Kent Hovind within FSM) If only you had an open mind you'd be a good fsm. -- Its all very absurd. I know, I live it.
I like how when I'm being the very opposite of close minded and shiruken just ignores the gist of my post and goes on about the flying spaghetti monster in a way that doesn't even answer my post. It just goes to show that Atheists can be close minded to. If you're just imagining your side of the debate, you're close minded.
Watch my above video its a very good argument and sometimes contreversal as shown by the comments of angry christans lol.
Religion cannot be tested by science. Period. End of story, no argument, etc. Religion is based on beliefs and faith. Science requires testable evidence in order judge a hypothesis and draw conclusions. Since religion cannot provide any testable evidence, it's hypotheses cannot be tested, and therefore no conclusions can be drawn. (I haven't watched the video, so I'm not referring to anything that it may discuss)
I never understood why anyone needs to pray at all? If God is omniscient shouldn't he know all questions that will be ever asked of him and requests? Isn't praying in that sense very redundant? If he knows that and what you will ask, then if you don't pray, shouldn't it just happen anyway the way it'd happen without praying because he would know?
Yep. He may know all, but he won't intervene unless you ask. He can always change a determined thing - he is omnipotent after all.
My question stands. Why do you have to ask if he already knows? Does he need to hear you beg for something? Is that benevolence? I consider that cruel, to make one beg. If he's omnipotent, then why does he need to be prompted for action? He already knows if that prayer will come or not, so why does he need it?
You don't understand do you? Do you find it cruel that God answers our prayers? Don't even bother giving me your "FSM" or physical evidence BS. We're not even begging. We're asking. Its simple, and its sad I have to re state it: we have to ask, or else he won't do anything. That doesn't mean he won't do anything, though. He's not "prompted for action." Don't you ever think that if things were solved before people asked that they wouldn't bother believing in God? If God already did everything for people, then people wouldn't bother asking God for anything. The reason he made us is so he can show his love, not because he can sit back and rain terror on people.
Watch that video posted about a page back. It actually makes a lot of sense. The whole "prayer" thing, really just a placebo effect.
Thank you for actualy watching it even if its long it breaks down the basics of how prayer has little to no effect on a person it actualy has a reverse effect on people. the "Yes" ," No" and "Wait" was even posted on Christain websites so I like how he breaks it down to what it really is an Illusion . To me Religion is a illusion to make people able to cope with morality and death . @ Diablo Why is this guy stupid for making a basic video breaking down how prayer/religion functions ? He did some amount of research to show the effects on some groups of subjects [ones who prayed,ones who didn't] and there were no effects on these people. The subjects were fataly ill people meaning they were probably going to die do to there ailment. There was a reverse effect he pointed out to that more of the people who prayed/were prayed for had done worse[died]. This simply showed that prayer did not help. He obviously knew the results of each case it was pretty simple they died or they didn't and they showed it ,they took the percentage of either group to see who survived more than the other.I like the milk jug break down its a solid argument that is comical and is true IMO you ask for something and you don't recieve a response because theres no one to give you one.I personaly have NEVER heard a vioce answer me back when i prayed [when I was a part of a religion] and no one I know could either.If i did here a vioce id be called crazy lol. If I go to Iraqu tommorow and pray to God to keep me and my fellow brothers in arms safe I doubt we will be any more safe if I didn't. Bullets will do just as much damage with or with out Gods help. Plus you can drink milk :] yummy.
Can you explain what you're trying to say? God made the world.. and we pray... what's so wrong about that? Praying is talking to God... I'd argue that placebo is really just prayer. Placebo nearly perfectly explains what's already been said in the Bible, but the Bible is tons younger. The problem is "Yes, no, and wait" can be applied to ANY chance happening. Its not just God we're talking about here. The whole basis for his argument is "yes, no, wait." I personally only believe in one of those. "Yes." Every single prayer is answered. Not every prayer is entirely done, but all are answered, and taken care of to the best of God's ability. You could apply the same situation with evolution. Is it true? Here are your options: Yes, evolution is true. No, evolution is not true. Wait till we find out. We can't make a firm decision because it can lead to either one of those points. However, at a point in time, we will probably have enough evidence to discern if its true or not. The same exact system with God. We don't know everything about God or evolution - its just a matter of "wait" and then "yes" or "no" and we don't even know if the wait will ever end, for either situation. The option of wait is barely applicable - because we can't tell if it will ever happen. If wait is the option and it never happens - there is then no yes and not a no. What does that say? Its an opinion. Yes, evolution is true. No, evolution is not true. Wait till we find out. (scientific advances) Yes, God is true. No, God is not true. Wait till we find out. (apocalypse) Disregarding any factual evidence and coincidences, due to the uncertainty and viable validity of either path, tell me the difference. The wait may never come. The yes may never come. The no may never come.
No, you cannot because evolution is as "true" as scientifically possible. The process of evolution has been verified by countless experiments in the microscopic realm and the stages of development found in the fossil record. There is no argument on whether evolution occurs or not. Also, there is a fatal flaw in this entire argument and it has to do with the one word I put in quotations above. While you attempt to present it in a scientific manner, as soon as you say the word "true," you violate the bounds of the scientific method. Science does not deal in absolutes. Through the scientific method, anything that is testable can have conclusions drawn about it. Should further evidence be presented to contradict that conclusion, then the previous conclusion can be refuted. At no point is anything considered absolute truth, not even the most well-supported and documented phenomena (e.g. gravity). Science does not seek truth, it seeks an understanding and an explanation. Truth lies in the realm of belief and therefore should not be included in scientific debate.
1) The argument is a few threads down. You don't have concrete physical evidence, for microscopic organisms, turning into all life. We have physical evidence for the minor changes, not the major changes. If you would please read my post, I stated these two things: "Wait till we find out. (scientific advances)" "Disregarding any factual evidence and coincidences, due to the uncertainty and viable validity of either path, " 2) There are such things as absolute truths. It is more than absolute truth that gravity, whatever its name or history may be, the premise happens. There is observable, absolute, gravitational force working. Its undeniable truth. Though gravity may change and fade away - what we have now is that absolute truth. We can observe right NOW that the premise of gravity is happening - and that is the absolute truth. As I type, it is an absolute truth that the premise of typing right now is happening - whether typing may change or the name itself will change, the action remains the same. I AM typing right now, with absolute certainty and acknowledgement of my typing. The scientific method tests lots of things - but it doesn't test everything, because some things ARE true. If nothing was true (accurate) than everything as we know it would be a paradox contradicting a paradox, which is an endless bound of paradox's.
Pliable The point is that Science is flexible when new information and new understanding come to light. Nothing is an absolute truth because we know, from past experience that sometimes our definitions of things can and should change when we find new evidence. Our understanding of Gravity, while it is perfectly consistent everywhere in the observable universe, could change. In the future we may learn of some other phenomena that is actually in control of producing the gravitational affect, and we may have to alter our definition of what gravity is. There is no absolute truth, just various levels of understanding that move every closer to it, never reaching it. We believed for centuries that the Earth was at the center of the universe. You could say that was accepted as an absolute truth. We then found out that we were mistaken. It was a very painful and contoroversial process for so many people to accept that they were wrong, but it was a necessary process that moved us forward and upward in our understanding of the universe. The healthiest part about a scientific mind is it's pliable nature, understanding that you have to keep an open mind and be able to change your views as we learn more. Religion is stagnant in it's views. An institution that is set up to claim absolute truth and never change regardless of what new information becomes available is doomed to perish with the steadily advancing level of human discovery.