GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
[img139]http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/206/original/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg?1241373617[/img139]
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Explain to me the cons of basing our culture off religion.
- Thread starter Surfing_Pikachu
- Start date
- Status
[img139]http://knowyourmeme.com/system/icons/206/original/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg?1241373617[/img139]
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Let's not have another one of these. The point was not evolution, but origin. Geez...
...you didn't really read the quote, did you?
I was referring to the part that said, "Lip tactile response may be evoked by the end of the 7th week." Of course, that's just for lips but...
"Pain can be detected when nociceptors (pain receptors) discharge electrical impulses to the spinal cord and brain. These fire impulses outward, telling the muscles and body to react. These can be measured." Same article. Unless you've got evidence otherwise?
The M-Theory also discusses multiple dimensions, which, like God, is something that exists beyond our world and is purely a faith based assumption.
Wow, there are so many things wrong with this.-You cited Wikipedia for your last two links, and you're complaining about my source?
-There are really only two different sides an article could be on in this debate: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. A Pro-Choice article would have done nothing to help my argument, so I used the one that would.
-Does bias honestly change scientific fact?
What? Killing bacteria is not even in the same boat as killing an individual person. Oh, and vaccines aren't used to kill bacteria, just viruses.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
A quote you said or another article? "This is hardly more scientifically sound."jesusfreak said:
Edit: Maybe you meant scientifically unsound if the Big Bang was stated as the actual origin. I guess I have no problem with that, but it doesn't state it as the origin of the entire universe (or universes; whatever).
parts of the upper and lower extremities are sensitive to touch. By 13 1/2 to 14 weeks, the entire body surface, except for the back and the top of the head, are sensitive to pain."
Sounds like it's very particular.
Can I just ask for a more updated source on this? I'm curious as to see if this is actually agreed upon by the medical community.
I was referring to the theory that the Big Bang was preceded by the universe existing as a singularity, so yes, sort of.
Will you forgive me if I get back to you on this? Sorry, I'm just tired and my computer's starting to act up.
But, ya know, not all of the sources used in that article were old...
Edit: By the way, I had looked up other sources for this subject, but each that explained the earlier "pain mark" were pro-life sources, which apparently you guys don't like for me to use :\. The one I cited was the least obvious.
Last edited:
Ok, I dont know if this is a joke or not, but if you truely believe that a flying delicious meal is our God, I feel sorry for you. If I was Atheist (which I'm not), I wouldnt even follow that religion, I'd just stay an atheist.
GhostAnime
Searching for her...
Okay.. and I still wonder how that's unscientifically sound.jesusfreak said:
GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
Because something is hard for you to conceive does not make it impossible. I suggest you actually read the article, as the M-Theory is not one of those "crazy theories"
Wikipedia's main goal is to be a neutral encyclopedia, without bias. Pages must be neutral, have sources to widely accepted sources and be of appropriate writing style of an encyclopedia. Yes, there are some articles, especially vague ones, that do not meet these criteria. This article is not one of them. The section I linked to has sources to respectable material.
-You cited Wikipedia for your last two links, and you're complaining about my source?
What disgusts me is that you had that you had the audacity to vandalize the Wikipedia page to say "Fetuses ARE capable of feeling pain." Don't claim you didn't, as that would be an insult to my intelligence. You'll be happy to know I reverted it. Your actions do not contribute to your argument and simply give me the ability to claim that your methods are the same as all Christians, which I luckily for your case will not.
The website neither cites sources nor appears credible. So yes, I would say in this case bias affected it's sway on my opinion.
Last edited:
Sabonea_Masukippa
Well-Known Member
That's ok brother. We, as Flying-Spaghetti-Monsterorians, have always known that we would be mocked and persecuted for our beliefs. But we have felt the love through being touched by his noodle-y appendage and if you just opened your heart, you would feel it to.
GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
Yes, join us Aggron459, allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster to reach into your heart with his noodly appendage, and you shall feel fulfilled. He is the true god, and he has the bigger balls than any other god.
Hamishmash
"Just... stuff."
APOLOGIES FOR TYPOS. I'M TIRED.
I'm a big supporter of Richard Dawnkins in general and have read two of his books so clearly I'm an atheist. I always find it weird when religious people seem to claim values such as "love" and "forgiveness" as being solely religious, when just because those values are there in religion doesn't mean that without religion, you are without those values.
The problem with basing your culture off religion is that things would change as our world does. If the Bible, for example in a purely hypothetical scenario, forbad the use of wind or sunlight to get our power, then a society based totally off religion wouldn't find any greener energy resources. In a more practical example, the fact that many Christians believe gay marriage is wrong is an argument against it. There's no science behind that, no actual evidence to suggest it would somehow harm society, but because Christians say it is wrong, then that is an argument, even though the believe that homosexuality is in some way a fault or something to be scared of is very outdated.
We now (hopefully) know that gay people are just normal people who were born that way and cannot help it, and ALL impartial scientific study supports this. However because we live in a culture where religion is still (and in my opinion unfortunately) very much controlling of government, this research means squat.
As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster... the whole POINT of it is how ridiculous it is. Why do people still not believe in the Ancient Egyptian religion? It lasted far longer than Christianity has without people doubting it, and it's really no madder than anything in the Bible. So why is Christianity or Islam or any of the modern religions really any more truthful than the ancient ones? Why is a Flying Spaghetti Monsters REALLY, HONESTLY more mad than any other theory for God?
I'm a big supporter of Richard Dawnkins in general and have read two of his books so clearly I'm an atheist. I always find it weird when religious people seem to claim values such as "love" and "forgiveness" as being solely religious, when just because those values are there in religion doesn't mean that without religion, you are without those values.
The problem with basing your culture off religion is that things would change as our world does. If the Bible, for example in a purely hypothetical scenario, forbad the use of wind or sunlight to get our power, then a society based totally off religion wouldn't find any greener energy resources. In a more practical example, the fact that many Christians believe gay marriage is wrong is an argument against it. There's no science behind that, no actual evidence to suggest it would somehow harm society, but because Christians say it is wrong, then that is an argument, even though the believe that homosexuality is in some way a fault or something to be scared of is very outdated.
We now (hopefully) know that gay people are just normal people who were born that way and cannot help it, and ALL impartial scientific study supports this. However because we live in a culture where religion is still (and in my opinion unfortunately) very much controlling of government, this research means squat.
As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster... the whole POINT of it is how ridiculous it is. Why do people still not believe in the Ancient Egyptian religion? It lasted far longer than Christianity has without people doubting it, and it's really no madder than anything in the Bible. So why is Christianity or Islam or any of the modern religions really any more truthful than the ancient ones? Why is a Flying Spaghetti Monsters REALLY, HONESTLY more mad than any other theory for God?
Religion does not instill morals on us. When was the last time you heard of an Atheist extremist?
Religion does hold us back. One of the most Christian countries in the world, the united states, has a huge creationist movement that essentialy says evolution is wrong, and that god created everything the way it is today.
Religion does promote hostility to those of different beliefs. I used to live in south carolina (in the USA) as an atheist for about 6 years. WORST 6 YEARS OF MY LIFE. Dawkins and other Atheist leaders frequently get threatening letters from Christians. And what do you call the crusades? And the six day war?
To say that this is only the extremly religious people may be true, but how many people are extremly religious? at least in the USA, alot of people.
furthermore the less religious people make the extreme religious people not so extreme. meaning that now there are more of them.
Ok, I had to respond to this.
I read the article alright. I never said it was crazy, it actually intrigues me. And that first sentence could apply to you to.
Wikipedia is editable and unreliable, as you are obviously aware by your next paragraph.
EXCUSE ME?! Is this your game? You insult my character by suggesting that I would edit an article like that. Heck, I wouldn't even use Wikipedia if it had coincided with my argument. And honestly, if I had edited the article to make it look like I was right, don't you think I would have pointed that out to you earlier?
And on top of that, I don't even have an account on Wikipedia to edit stuff. But it looks like you've been doing some editing lately, as you just admitted. That makes you seem pretty guilty.
It cites sources after every couple of sentences. Seriously, read.
I read the article alright. I never said it was crazy, it actually intrigues me. And that first sentence could apply to you to.
Wikipedia is editable and unreliable, as you are obviously aware by your next paragraph.
EXCUSE ME?! Is this your game? You insult my character by suggesting that I would edit an article like that. Heck, I wouldn't even use Wikipedia if it had coincided with my argument. And honestly, if I had edited the article to make it look like I was right, don't you think I would have pointed that out to you earlier?
And on top of that, I don't even have an account on Wikipedia to edit stuff. But it looks like you've been doing some editing lately, as you just admitted. That makes you seem pretty guilty.
It cites sources after every couple of sentences. Seriously, read.
AzukanAsimbu
Petal Paladin
^ and also the salem witch trials, those didnt even have straight facts
GetOutOfBox
Original Series Fan
Hmm. Contradiction? And how does "In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions are identified" apply to me? I hope I'm more interesting than that.
Are you actually claiming that minutes before you responded to my post someone else coincidentally vandalized the article (I cited) to support your opinion? In exactly the section I cited? Maybe there is such a thing as god then, and the tooth fairy as well. And yes, I am guilty of combating vandalism in the form of reverting an edit that said "Fetuses ARE capable of feeling pain." (/sarcasm).
In that section you linked to discussing fetal pain, it cites one source to a single essay written by a guy 31 years ago. I can even dispute the source itself rather than the fact that it's extremely outdated, as you can possess pain receptors but be incapable of feeling pain, if your brain hasn't developed enough to be capable of it.
I said it was outside of our known world, not crazy. There's no contradiction. And lol, I meant the first line of your statement. XD
Are you actually accusing me of such an act without a single shred of proof? Look, I don't have the time or energy to tell you what all is wrong with your accusation of me trying to edit an article that I would never use (after all, Rule #1 of citations: never cite Wikipedia), but I will say that for all we know, you could have changed the original text in the article. After all, I have more evidence here...
...that you've been doing some editing than you have against me. So, HA!
Seriously, you really do have some nerve to resort to accusing someone of editing evidence. You're better than that.
They had what they considered "proof". When something goes wrong everyone wabts to blame someone they just chose random people that they could say were witches.
Is there a reason I was thrown in there? My latest post defended religion by explaining how early religions gave rise to extremely useful scientific practices, but I'm the biased one?
That's contradictory: if religions do not instill some kind of moral code, then there wouldn't be anyone who takes that code to the extreme.
This is true, but of course, I don't think I have to remind anyone here about the Scopes Monkey Trial.
They don't explicitly pormote hostility or violence, but then again, they aren't exactly open to other beliefs. But what it all comes down to is interpretation. That's why you have Christians who openly accept homosexuals and Muslims who hijack airplanes.
After a while, those weren't even about religion. Sure, the accusers could use the religion card, but mostly those were driven by fear-mongering, power-thirst, hysteria and corruption of the government. Now I wanna read The Crucible again...
A modern example: Pat Robertson has blamed basically everything on everyone who isn't a Christian. he and Jerry Falwell blamed 9/11 on Pagans, abortionists, feminists (apparently, women are less than), gays and lesbians, and the ACLU. He has also called Hinduism "demonic" and Islam "Satanic." He also believes that the Haitians suffered that massive earthquake for making a pact with the devil in order to get revenge on their French slave owners (apparently, disliking slavery is also Satanic). Of course, he's just one example.
But he's a pretty damn good one.
Vermehlo_Steele
Grand Arbiter II
Moar ignorance, OK then.
Slavery: The atheist nations of the USSR, PRC and Nazi Germany used slavery from time to time. The Belomar Canal in Russia, for a quick example, was constructed using slaves. The slaves here in question were prisoners who numbered in the millions, but slaves they were.
War: Nazi Germany kicked of the largest war in human history (in terms of pure body count), the USSR forces condemned 2million German and east European women to rape when the Red Army 'liberated' east Europe.
Cults/Enforced Ignorance: I'm sure that the USSR, Nazi Germany, PRC and other nations that were anti-religious for whatever reason were all bastions of enlightenment now, weren't they?
Now, I use these countries as they were all anti-religious, atheism was part of their doctrine. It just goes to show, despite what some people believe, that religion has no monopoly on evil.
The phrase "more mad than any other theory for God?" is purely one of perspective. For why the FSM is more mad a theory, maybe it's because the FSM is a trolling exercise, not a religion. As for why ancient faiths die out, it's because as new religions emerged, people generally converted to them. Christianity's and Islam's combined number of adherents total 58% of the world's population, that number didn't just pop out of nowhere.
Do it, prove all the points you laid out. I dare you.
Last edited:
I cansomewhat see why he would blame pagans but why would femminists, abortionists gays and lesbians be responsible?!
It seems like he just wanted to make people fear them, by pulling on a still healing wound. And satanism is the pursuit of knowledge originally (I might be confusing ny facts) but I thought satanism was the pursuit of knowledge and they were demonized. (Sorry if I'm confusing facts)
Sabonea_Masukippa
Well-Known Member
Hitler was a demonstrable Catholic, so was much of Germany and the SS at the time of the war.
Yes, they corrupted Marxism for political gain and human exploitation. Their doctrine was not religious but it still sucked.
How offensive and patronizing to honest, enlightened believers of a peaceful religion.
58% of people can be wrong. The ancients were wrong about Ra, Thor, Zeus, and so on.
- Status