An Alternative to Manmade Elixirs

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"considering the proposition" is premised on the need " to release yourself from the bonds of your religion": non-applicable.

Also, considering your proposition, is premised on the actual existence of the 'eternal life' being offered. So can I also say that it is 'non-applicable'? If not, why not?

Originally posted by CalJust
So to claim that they MAY be equal beliefs, is insulting.

I have not claimed that they are equal beliefs. I also don't see why a person being the only member of his religion, comparing his religion or his god to that of a god worshiped by a larger quantity of people would be considered insulting.
If anything, I think the reverse is true. Your implication that minority religions or gods are less worthy simply because they have less followers is insulting to the minority religions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have not claimed that they are equal beliefs. I also don't see why a person being the only member of his religion, comparing his religion or his god to that of a god worshiped by a larger quantity of people would be considered insulting.
If anything, I think the reverse is true. Your implication that minority religions or gods are less worthy simply because they have less followers is insulting to the minority religions.

The "large following" part of my post was actually a minor component - I will withdraw that if it makes you happy. For the record, I fully support the right of "minor" religions.

You will, however, admit that you never seriously expected GB to enthusiastically join your "PUIMF" cult? Would you be able to advise him on the appropriate worship rituals if he did?
Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by CalJust
I will explain why it does come across as insulting, even if (as you claim) it is not designed in being so.

A very large proportion of humankind believe in some kind of deity. I would venture to suggest that you are the only one who believes in your little pet unicorn, even with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

So to claim that they MAY be equal beliefs, is insulting.

Well that "little pet unicorn" is still, "some kind of deity" nonetheless. Moreover, if we really grilled every theist on the notion of "God" they hold exists uniquely I'm sure we would find that their views on this deity are not shared by many others (and so they are one of a select few to believe in such deity).

The little pet unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, Thor, and so on ... are debating devices not intended to be insulting, or provocative. They are intended to show how some argument, or system of arguments to support some particular deity is flawed at a structural level, by applying it to a differentReveal Hidden Contentdeity but with similar structure. The "equality" here is meant in structure, as opposed to cosmetics - and if some argument breaks down for one then it really isn't valid for the other.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well that "little pet unicorn" is still, "some kind of deity" nonetheless. Moreover, if we really grilled every theist on the notion of "God" they hold exists uniquely I'm sure we would find that their views on this deity are not shared by many others (and so they are one of a select few to believe in such deity).

The little pet unicorn, the flying spaghett ...[text shortened]... o cosmetics - and if some argument breaks down for one then it really isn't valid for the other.

The problem with the "flying spaghetti monster" argument is that everyone know it doesn't exist, so it is a flawed argument for denying the existence of a creator God.

The argument for a creator God, that is, a being who brought into existence all that exists, is supported by the evidence of all that exists. By introducing an argument for the existence of a fictitious entity to support the idea that the idea of a creator God is fictitious, is hollow and without merit, and only servers to underscore the silliness with which some treat the seriousness of the existence of a creator.

It misses the whole point, and reveals only that the one who uses such a silly argument is actually trying to derail the discussion whether knowingly or not.

Originally posted by josephw
The problem with the "flying spaghetti monster" argument is that everyone know it doesn't exist, so it is a flawed argument for denying the existence of a creator God.

The argument for a creator God, that is, a being who brought into existence all that exists, is supported by the evidence of all that exists. By introducing an argument for the existence of ...[text shortened]... uses such a silly argument is actually trying to derail the discussion whether knowingly or not.

Well firstly, the flying spaghetti monster isn't an argument, it is a deity. Moreover, its status as a deity is unaffected by the number of people that believe in it currently.

Secondly, as per my previous post you have made the following dubious argument:

The argument for a creator God being who brought into existence all that exists, is supported by the evidence of all that exists.

Which fails, structurally, because it can equally well be applied to a cosmetically different deity which respects the same structure:

The argument for a creator Flying Spaghetti Monster being who brought into existence all that exists, is supported by the evidence of all that exists.

where its failure to work is immediate.


Try to think of FSM and other such devices as analogies, they aren't meant to look the same - merely behave the same.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well firstly, the flying spaghetti monster isn't an argument, it is a deity. Moreover, it's status as a deity is unaffected by the number of people that believe in it currently.

Secondly, as per my previous post you have made the following dubious argument:[quote]The argument for a creator [b]God being who brought into existence all that exists, is supp ...[text shortened]... nd other such devices as analogies, they aren't meant to look the same - merely behave the same.[/b]

So what you're saying is that by inventing a fictitious character you disprove the existence of a creator God.

Originally posted by josephw
So what you're saying is that by inventing a fictitious character you disprove the existence of a creator God.

No, by using a fictitious character we are able to show that the arguments you use to support your notion of a creator god are broken. If such a god does actually exists (and in your case I am absolutely sure it doesn't), your arguments do nothing to illuminate this state of affairs.

Originally posted by CalJust
You will, however, admit that you never seriously expected GB to enthusiastically join your "PUIMF" cult?

No, I did not. But why does that make it an insult? And why did he expect me to join his cult? He claims to be open minded, but we both know that he is, in reality, only 'open minded' about things he already believes and not when it comes to something anyone else has to say.

Originally posted by josephw
The problem with the "flying spaghetti monster" argument is that everyone know it doesn't exist, so it is a flawed argument for denying the existence of a creator God.

I agree. But it is not being used as an argument for denying the existence of a creator God. What gave you the impression that it was?

Originally posted by CalJust
If I could persuade you to "Open up your Mind" (as you claim you are able to do), to REALLY see the other side, then I would also be able to solve the problem of the Middle East and deservedly claim the Nobel Peace Prize....

:'(

Many in the Middle East, China and elsewhere believe in Jesus Christ. They are in an oppressed minority which in some instances has become an underground church, thanks to state persecution. Noble Peace Prize: A sad joke perpetrated by and on intelligent men and women who are uninformed. Christ said: "There will be wars and rumors of wars until I come".

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
There is only one God.

Billions of non-Christians also believe there is only one God and that it isn't the Christian one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You only believe it is non-applicable, because you are not open minded enough to consider the possibility that you are bound by your religion. You have chosen not to believe the premise without even considering it.

twhitehead, for the past week it seemed you were actually an earnest skeptic seeking answers; within the past 24 hours it's become apparent these impressions were wrong. By choice, you don't seem to give a damn about your eternal destiny.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, for the past week it seemed you were actually an earnest skeptic seeking answers; within the past 24 hours it's become apparent these impressions were wrong. By choice, you don't seem to give a damn about your eternal destiny.

As a matter of interest, do you reckon you've brought your best game to the task of replacing his beliefs with yours during the last 24 hours?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
twhitehead, for the past week it seemed you were actually an earnest skeptic seeking answers; within the past 24 hours it's become apparent these impressions were wrong. By choice, you don't seem to give a damn about your eternal destiny.

In other words, you expect me to be 'an earnest skeptic seeking answers' whilst you sit there dishing out those answers? Sorry, not going to happen.
I am open to listening to you only on the condition that you are open to listening to me. The conversation must a be a two way street.
I do give a damn about my destiny, just as you do. I just happen to have different beliefs about what it is going to be. Why do you assume that just because I believe differently from you, I do not care about it?