SMASHKING84 #fundie

SMASHKING84 #fundie gamefaqs.com

One thing i will say about the whole flying spaghetti monster analogy:the idea of god is far far more likely then that.

the whole idea that because you cannot prove something exist it must not exist doesn't work either.

After all Can you prove that I'm not a figment of your imagination? not unless we meet in real life.
I can assure you i do in fact exist.

43 comments

old comment by Swede

Learn to English, please.

It's the other way around; until you can prove that something exist, people are going to be skeptical about the existence of that thing. Plus, the more fantastical your claim is, the more fantastic evidence is needed. We do know that humans exist; we have about 6 billion pieces of evidence for that. So the claim that you exist doesn't need much evidence. But no-one has ever been able to provide sufficient evidence for the existence of any gods or goddesses, so the claim that one particular god does exist require a massive amount of evidence.

And, remember that it's not enough that you are convinced by the evidence. You need to convince the skeptics with your evidence.

old comment by Canadiest

One thing i will say about the whole flying spaghetti monster analogy: It totally works against all fundie arguments of Proof and assertions.

So does the tea-cup in orbit around mars or all the planets, why not,Leprecauns, fairies, trolls other peoples (gasp) Gods. You can't prove they don't exist which is the point you think counts when you guys claim if we can't prove God doesn't then he must. Y'see, that's why you get accused of special pleading, you think you can use argument exclusively to your cause.

And we don't say that as an absolute, there's no evidence to support your God or FSM or any of the other things I mentioned, that's it. It's like how you guys hijacked the scientific principle of first cause and twisted it to mean your God had to be in that Gap before the Big Bang but insist your God is not subject to that because he's always been. You actually stand fast and hard on that beginning of THIS universe as being an absolute undeniable event, because it's stupid to think it may be from an older universe that eventually goes on forever reciprocally (matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Only changed< that's the part you creationist dropped when you use that)because nothing can be eternal, you say, EXCEPT your God.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Can you prove that I'm not a figment of your imagination? not unless we meet in real life"

Well, you've just admitted that you are nothing more than a slightly more advanced Chatterbot AI, therefore anything you say - even about 'religion' - is invalid, as a mere algorithm has even less credibility debate-wise than His Holy Sauciness, least of all the reason for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pastafarianism, 'Talk Like A Pirate Day' etc; i.e. the point of the FSM.

Russell's Teapot and all that jazz. So I'm afraid that - re your 'God' - you & all your fundie ilk with nothing more than 'Faith' (which sounds just like FAIL) and your 'Beliefs' (remember: You cannot spell 'Beliefs' without the word LIE) lose the debate doubly.

A rainbow doesn't physically exist, but at least we can see it (thus annihilating the concept of the 'Spiritual'/'Supernatural'), Ergo...:

image

Frankly it's not looking (pun may or may not be intended) very good for you fundies, proof-wise (1 Thessalonians 5:21 [KJV]); even you 'God' can't be counted as an Analogy, when 'he' is nothing more than something pulled out of the Anal regions of Bronze Age goatfuckers with ideas above their stations.

Moral: Then you wonder why people no longer 'Believe', purely on spec as you lot would wish - certainly force - us to...? And when the point of the FSM continues to go right over you fundies' heads, then again, no wonder...!

old comment by Philbert McAdamia

@ Swede
until you can prove that something exist, people are going to be skeptical about the existence of that thing. Plus, the more fantastical your claim is, the more fantastic evidence is needed

I beg to differ. You and I need good evidence, but look at how many people believe in religion. It's hard for me to determine which ones are the craziest and most fantastical, but betwixt Christianity, Islam, Mormonism and Scientology they all give each other a good run, and what would be the percentage of people in lock step with these? 80% in the U.S.? Or is that just the Xters? And not only is it based on a lack of evidence, but quite a lot is boldly in the face of known charlatanism. Joseph Smith, L.Ron Hubbard, televangelists.

SMASHKING84 #fundie gamefaqs.com

43 comments

Confused?