Theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
NP here: you made the claim that Dawkins is spiteful and contemptuous. The burden is on you to provide evidence.

You atheists lose this one, big time.

"Richard Dawkins to atheist rally: 'Show contempt' for faith":
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/03/-atheists-richard-dawkins-reason-rally/1

"Dawkins: Mock Them. Ridicule Them. In Public. With Contempt (July 2013)": http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/07/dawkins-mock-them-ridicule-them-in-public-with-contempt/

That was sooooo easy, two seconds googling. Now the burden is on you to prove that these articles are lies. Or something.

[Anonymous]

Dawkins' dick status is well-known. I'm surprised some of the atheists on DCUM are so ignorant about how many atheists view their hero. In fact, the first link below describes how the lefty Guardian (I actually read it daily, no kidding) had Dawkins' picture with a caption "The Dick Delusion."


http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/09/god-richard-dawkins-angry-atheist

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind

[Anonymous]

Just as religion has its fundamentalists, atheism has Dawkins. Don't saddle the rest of us with him. Most of us are quite comfortable coexisting with those who do unto others just like we do, but with God's help.

[Anonymous]

Dawkins specifically says he's talking about when religious folks make claims in the public sphere. When "religion makes specific claims about the universe that need to be substantiated" those claims need to be challenged. And there's no reason to beat around the bush about it. Not when such magic thinking holds a place of privilege in our politics and society at large.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins' dick status is well-known. I'm surprised some of the atheists on DCUM are so ignorant about how many atheists view their hero. In fact, the first link below describes how the lefty Guardian (I actually read it daily, no kidding) had Dawkins' picture with a caption "The Dick Delusion."


http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/sep/09/god-richard-dawkins-angry-atheist

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2013/08/atheism-maturing-and-it-will-leave-richard-dawkins-behind

By "Dawkins' dick status is well-known" you appear to mean, several internet bloggers are also pissed off at him. Not the most compelling argument imaginable.

In any case when Dawkins talks about "contempt" it's clear he means for the beliefs, not for the believer. (Love the sinner; hate the sin) And I get the sense that's Dawkins' true crime: people of "faith" basically want respect for the intellectual underpinnings of their faith. Sorry, but you have to earn that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a little confused about the god who is not a “separate being” being the same as the god that is “being itself,” but that aside, you seem to know that the non-being is all powerful, created heaven and earth, etc., etc., which sounds a lot like the god in the bible, including that he was capable of sending a very special human here to die for our sins, (pretty much like it says in the New Testament), and that the non-being, did, in fact, send his son for that purpose. I suppose such an all-powerful non-being would be capable of doing anything, so it’s very convenient that he decided to do what’s in the bible. Clearly, according to you, this non-being is a Christian, or at least partial to Christians.

Some of the many things I wonder about this idea, are: How do you know so much about the non-being and its activities and motives? Where did it come from and how can we determine its dependability? How broad is this belief? Is it openly taught in any churches or in Sunday schools? Does it only apply to Christians, or does this non-being exert power over religions too? If so, how does it manifest among Jews or Muslims?

Whenever I hear about the version of god that is beyond our comprehension and beyond our reality I just don’t understand how this helps the theist make their case for their particular religion.

Such a god could be any god. Such a god could be an alien machine intelligence running a simulation on an alien supercomputer to see how organics may have created the first machine intelligence (and we are that simulation). Such a god could be as concerned about humanity as we are about the bacteria that grows around volcano vents a mile below the ocean.

How exactly does such an undefinable god tie back to the beliefs of any religion? How does that help make the case that Jesus was anything other than a man that was killed by other men? How does that help make the case that Moses didn’t carve the Ten Commandments himself? How does it make the case that Joseph Smith was wrong?

In the attempt to not be pinned down to any part of reality, this argument makes the case that man cannot know the mind of god and hence know what god wants, expects or demands. If that is the case, you are better off believing in no gods and just trying to be a good person lest you believe something based on the wrong religion and get punished for doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins specifically says he's talking about when religious folks make claims in the public sphere. When "religion makes specific claims about the universe that need to be substantiated" those claims need to be challenged. And there's no reason to beat around the bush about it. Not when such magic thinking holds a place of privilege in our politics and society at large.

Are you the DCUM atheist who distorts everything? Because you certainly act like that poster.

Both articles are very clear that you are supposed to mock individual religious people and when you do this mocking, it should be done b] in public[/b]. In other words, this isn't just about challenging the teaching of Creationism "in the public sphere" as you claim. It's also about being a dickhead to individual believers. It's apparently why, for example, some of you come onto DCUM and act like dickheads to other posters.

Here, let me help. From the USA Today article: "Then Dawkins got to the part where he calls on the crowd not only to challenge religious people but to "ridicule and show contempt" for their doctrines and sacraments, including the Eucharist, which Catholics believe becomes the body of Christ during Mass."

From the Patheos link: "The interesting portion of the video comes after Dr Dawkins’ predictable call for his audience to “mock them, ridicule them, in public … with contempt,” when they talk to Christians."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just as religion has its fundamentalists, atheism has Dawkins. Don't saddle the rest of us with him. Most of us are quite comfortable coexisting with those who do unto others just like we do, but with God's help.

I know. Some of you atheists are quite nice. I'm responding to the particular two posters (always two angry atheists on DCUM, hmmm) who were insisting that Dawkins never treats religious people with contempt. That was patently wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Whenever I hear about the version of god that is beyond our comprehension and beyond our reality I just don’t understand how this helps the theist make their case for their particular religion.

Such a god could be any god. Such a god could be an alien machine intelligence running a simulation on an alien supercomputer to see how organics may have created the first machine intelligence (and we are that simulation). Such a god could be as concerned about humanity as we are about the bacteria that grows around volcano vents a mile below the ocean.

How exactly does such an undefinable god tie back to the beliefs of any religion? How does that help make the case that Jesus was anything other than a man that was killed by other men? How does that help make the case that Moses didn’t carve the Ten Commandments himself? How does it make the case that Joseph Smith was wrong?

In the attempt to not be pinned down to any part of reality, this argument makes the case that man cannot know the mind of god and hence know what god wants, expects or demands. If that is the case, you are better off believing in no gods and just trying to be a good person lest you believe something based on the wrong religion and get punished for doing so.

Yes, it's about belief. I thought we settled that several pages back-- and in umpteen other DCUM threads. If you like, we can make this more interesting, by debating how agnosticism is the only rationally-definsible position, because atheism is also faith (you can't prove God doesn't exist). In short: we will have to agree to disagree, with RESPECT.

[Anonymous]

Dawkins is a fallible human being. Atheists don't need to defend him, because we don't hold him up as any kind of ultimate source of truth. He makes some strong arguments which you should address on their merits, rather than attacking him for some of the abrasive things he has said.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of nasty atheists, are there examples in history of atheists engaging in systematic killing of people who disagree with our worldview?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of nasty atheists, are there examples in history of atheists engaging in systematic killing of people who disagree with our worldview?

Why yes, yes there are! Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of nasty atheists, are there examples in history of atheists engaging in systematic killing of people who disagree with our worldview?

Why yes, yes there are! Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind.

And Mao, of course. And others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins is a fallible human being. Atheists don't need to defend him, because we don't hold him up as any kind of ultimate source of truth. He makes some strong arguments which you should address on their merits, rather than attacking him for some of the abrasive things he has said.

Agreed. Unfortunately, there are some DCUM atheists who have swallowed the Dawkins in-your-face-contempt Koolaid. They make it impossible to have calm, thoughtful discussions about our differences. They also come off as being extremely insecure about their non-belief (something they accuse the shriller religious folks here of being - pot, meet kettle).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Whenever I hear about the version of god that is beyond our comprehension and beyond our reality I just don’t understand how this helps the theist make their case for their particular religion.

Such a god could be any god. Such a god could be an alien machine intelligence running a simulation on an alien supercomputer to see how organics may have created the first machine intelligence (and we are that simulation). Such a god could be as concerned about humanity as we are about the bacteria that grows around volcano vents a mile below the ocean.

How exactly does such an undefinable god tie back to the beliefs of any religion? How does that help make the case that Jesus was anything other than a man that was killed by other men? How does that help make the case that Moses didn’t carve the Ten Commandments himself? How does it make the case that Joseph Smith was wrong?

In the attempt to not be pinned down to any part of reality, this argument makes the case that man cannot know the mind of god and hence know what god wants, expects or demands. If that is the case, you are better off believing in no gods and just trying to be a good person lest you believe something based on the wrong religion and get punished for doing so.

Yes, it's about belief. I thought we settled that several pages back-- and in umpteen other DCUM threads. If you like, we can make this more interesting, by debating how agnosticism is the only rationally-definsible position, because atheism is also faith (you can't prove God doesn't exist). In short: we will have to agree to disagree, with RESPECT.

If you can logically defend your position here, then you're entitled to respect. Otherwise you get respect as a human being, but no respect for your unfounded beliefs--which are then inevitably used to shape public policy. You might want to ask yourself why, for example, druids don't receive this level of pushback.

Respect for the person; contempt for the contemptible idea.