Anonymous wrote:I notice that when something negative is said about Christians, they tend to respond with some version of "how dare you insult my faith?"

In contrast when something negative is said about atheists (e.g. "atheists have no morals.") they tend to respond with facts and explanations.

Why do you think this is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly all of you, atheists and Christians alike, seem mean-spirited, hostile and defensive.

Well, that's a charming and generous entry into the thread! What religion are you, may we ask?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your capacity for manipulating and distorting and insulting seems to know no bounds. Yes, I could point out specific lies in your post above if I wanted to waste my time.

Not very respectful dialogue.

If you could actually point to one instance of my arguing in bad faith, I'd feel bad about your breakdown here. But I'm at a loss.

Is this some kind of ironic performance art designed to prove the OP's thesis? Brilliant!

Anonymous wrote:Your capacity for manipulating and distorting and insulting seems to know no bounds. Yes, I could point out specific lies in your post above if I wanted to waste my time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Just to humor you, I'll respond. The point wasn't to "establish the intellectual bona fides for the FSM". (A classic phrase, btw). The point was to show the origin of the meme. And in turn to show that FSM isn't a pointless insult hurled at believers, but rather actually has a point to it.

At this point, by the way, I'm just wrapping up for any lurkers or readers who might follow. You've claimed that atheists unfairly charge that all "believers" believe literally in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I pointed out that that was incorrect, and a basic misunderstanding of the argument. I then posted a link to the above story so that you could read it and try to understand the argument being made.

First, why privilege any particular god? Also, "What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?"

These are the sorts of questions that mature adults (believers and non-) talk to one another about.

You on the other hand appeared to glance briefly at the quoted piece, saw "2007", and "prominent and controversial academic" and immediately engaged your lizard brain. The FSM doesn't have any "intellectual bona fides". Demanding them is silly and pretentious.

Anyway, your passion for the subject is certainly lively (if a bit scattered) so no hard feelings! May the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with His noodly apendage!

Stop right there. Nobody here, certainly not me, EVER said your position is that "all believers believe literally in the FSM." This is complete BS which you just made up.

Also, we just had the discussion about how, just because something has an origin that can be located in history, doesn't make it true. Hell, Micky Mouse and fascism can be located historically, but that doesn't make either real or good. Another poster (not you) already conceded this point.

I blush for you. Clearly you have no shame, so the rest of us will just have to be embarrassed for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Just to humor you, I'll respond. The point wasn't to "establish the intellectual bona fides for the FSM". (A classic phrase, btw). The point was to show the origin of the meme. And in turn to show that FSM isn't a pointless insult hurled at believers, but rather actually has a point to it.

At this point, by the way, I'm just wrapping up for any lurkers or readers who might follow. You've claimed that atheists unfairly charge that all "believers" believe literally in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I pointed out that that was incorrect, and a basic misunderstanding of the argument. I then posted a link to the above story so that you could read it and try to understand the argument being made.

First, why privilege any particular god? Also, "What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?"

These are the sorts of questions that mature adults (believers and non-) talk to one another about.

You on the other hand appeared to glance briefly at the quoted piece, saw "2007", and "prominent and controversial academic" and immediately engaged your lizard brain. The FSM doesn't have any "intellectual bona fides". Demanding them is silly and pretentious.

Anyway, your passion for the subject is certainly lively (if a bit scattered) so no hard feelings! May the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with His noodly apendage!

Anonymous wrote:

Just to humor you, I'll respond. The point wasn't to "establish the intellectual bona fides for the FSM". (A classic phrase, btw). The point was to show the origin of the meme. And in turn to show that FSM isn't a pointless insult hurled at believers, but rather actually has a point to it.

At this point, by the way, I'm just wrapping up for any lurkers or readers who might follow. You've claimed that atheists unfairly charge that all "believers" believe literally in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I pointed out that that was incorrect, and a basic misunderstanding of the argument. I then posted a link to the above story so that you could read it and try to understand the argument being made.

First, why privilege any particular god? Also, "What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?"

These are the sorts of questions that mature adults (believers and non-) talk to one another about.

You on the other hand appeared to glance briefly at the quoted piece, saw "2007", and "prominent and controversial academic" and immediately engaged your lizard brain. The FSM doesn't have any "intellectual bona fides". Demanding them is silly and pretentious.

Anyway, your passion for the subject is certainly lively (if a bit scattered) so no hard feelings! May the Flying Spaghetti Monster touch you with His noodly apendage!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the NBC News link:

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson sarcastically concluded.

Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?

Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular culture religious studies scholars should venture.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21837499/#.Ud7kRvnVCSo

So back in 2007 one TV station gave air time to a guy from Australia who also talked about Tupperware? Well, that convinced me! I'm an atheist now!

Oh wait. Your point?

Incapable of understanding or simply trolling? I give you the DCUM fundamentalist!

And I give you - a wrong answer! Not a fundamentalist.

One TV show on a possibly crank professor certainly doesn't establish intellectual bona fides for the FSM. Tell us why this TV show from 2007 is relevant to this thread. We're not going to do your work for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the NBC News link:

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson sarcastically concluded.

Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?

Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular culture religious studies scholars should venture.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21837499/#.Ud7kRvnVCSo

So back in 2007 one TV station gave air time to a guy from Australia who also talked about Tupperware? Well, that convinced me! I'm an atheist now!

Oh wait. Your point?

Incapable of understanding or simply trolling? I give you the DCUM fundamentalist!

Anonymous wrote:Frankly all of you, atheists and Christians alike, seem mean-spirited, hostile and defensive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the NBC News link:

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson sarcastically concluded.

Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?

Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular culture religious studies scholars should venture.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21837499/#.Ud7kRvnVCSo

So back in 2007 one TV station gave air time to a guy from Australia who also talked about Tupperware? Well, that convinced me! I'm an atheist now!

Oh wait. Your point?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


How arrogant are you? Seriously? How arrogant? "Pressured to say" they're religious?

You equate church attendance with professing faith in religion?

A few years ago, If I had been responding to a survey question on religion, I would have responded "catholic" only because I was raised one. I hadn't gone to church for years and have no intention of going back to it.

It's not so much pressure as an expectation that you have some religion, or should have.

So let me get this straight. The new working hypothesis is still that the polls are massively wrong (20% not 80% are believers). But now the polls are wrong because atheists feel they're expected to say something.

I'm sorry, but I'm an economist, and I have to go laugh in a quiet corner now.

Anonymous wrote:From the NBC News link:

Between the lines, the point of the letter was this: There's no more scientific basis for intelligent design than there is for the idea an omniscient creature made of pasta created the universe. If intelligent design supporters could demand equal time in a science class, why not anyone else? The only reasonable solution is to put nothing into sciences classes but the best available science.

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence," Henderson sarcastically concluded.

Indeed, the tale of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and its followers cuts to the heart of the one of the thorniest questions in religious studies: What defines a religion? Does it require a genuine theological belief? Or simply a set of rituals and a community joining together as a way of signaling their cultural alliances to others?

Joining them on the panel will be David Chidester, a prominent and controversial academic at the University of Cape Town in South Africa who is interested in precisely such questions. He has urged scholars looking for insights into the place of religion in culture and psychology to explore a wider range of human activities. Examples include cheering for sports teams, joining Tupperware groups and the growing phenomenon of Internet-based religions. His 2005 book "Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular Culture," prompted wide debate about how far into popular culture religious studies scholars should venture.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21837499/#.Ud7kRvnVCSo