Pages:
Author

Topic: No Other Foundation Than That Which Is In Flying Monster Spaghetti - page 3. (Read 5996 times)

hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Now that I pondered FSM even deeper I discovered the truth. FSM is the bitcoin. It's clear to me now the noodly appendages are the transaction chains and the meatballs are the blocks. So in reality FSM gave us his appearance to use in form of bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.

Did you forget the investor's pitch you tried with me already?
Yes and I remembered and this is not related.  This is a webular based business.
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
snip

Thanks for keying me in; however, how does this change the mind of a person who believes in God?
edd
donator
Activity: 1414
Merit: 1002
Because you all think the flying spaghetti monster debases the reality of god, when it only supports it.

It's not really an argument against God, but against organized religion.

Of course it's an argument against god...
The FSM is just a rehash of Russell's teapot.
It's the best, the oldest, and quite possibly the only argument against god.

FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster.  If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.

If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God; at such a point, if you abandon organized religion, it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism.  Can God appear as a FSM?  I don't see why not.  Is it likely?  No.  Has God been disproven?  In his common incarnations, yes, but not entirely; the idea has no effect on someone who believes in what can't be true, as long as there is a feeling of existence.


Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (or Pastafarianism) is an argument against teaching Intelligent Design as an "alternative theory" to evolution in science classes. Once you open the door to considering one "theory" that has no scientific evidence to back it up, you have to admit that any theory is just as likely (although the CoFSM has graphs, so is therefore the most scientific Intelligent Design theory yet).
hero member
Activity: 495
Merit: 507
Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.

Did you forget the investor's pitch you tried with me already?
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster.  If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.

If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God;


The point of Russell's teapot is that god doesn't need to be disproven. Either you can directly and scientifically prove his existence, or you must acknowledge that he is a logical fallacy.

The reasoning is that anyone can make any claim regarding non-provable things. You can say there is a god whose existence can not be proven or disproven. I can say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there. Bertrand Russell can say there is a teapot in space, and dank can say that someone at some point has levitated. The point is that either all such non-provable claims are true or they are all false. There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that the existence of god is in some way more likely than the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. And since there can be an infinite number of such claims, we must assume that either all these infinite imaginary things (like gods and monsters and leprechauns and teapots in space) actually exist, or they are all absolutely false.

We obviously can't assume that everything anyone can possibly imagine actually exists. That would probably break the laws of physics, as well as common sense. Therefore we must regard the existence of god (as well as anything else that has been imagined but never proven) as false on logical grounds. There is no need to try to disprove the existence of the infinite number of unproven things. That wouldn't be possible anyway. Rather, the burden is on the person who comes up with these things to prove their existence.

Atheism is not a possibility. It is a logical necessity.


it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism. 

The usefulness of god is irrelevant. Imaginary things don't pop into existence because they are useful. I could sure use about 100,000 BTC in my wallet right now, and yet, the blockchain disagrees...
I am not an atheist because I see no use for god, but because I assume god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.
And when you add the variable of an infinite universe, it's not only probably but definite that a FSM god, a teapot god, and any other thing you can imagine exists.

There are infinite dimensions right where you are, it's up to you to tune your mind to those frequencies, and anything you imagine will manifest in reality.

Surebet, I have investors backing this one and it is not related to drugs.
hero member
Activity: 495
Merit: 507
I should be getting a few thousand dollars worth of equipment for my business in the next week.

Business

dank just threw his last 3k at yet another drug venture, hopefully he'll be able to repay squall this time
full member
Activity: 187
Merit: 109
Converting information into power since 1867
FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster.  If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.

If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God;


The point of Russell's teapot is that god doesn't need to be disproven. Either you can directly and scientifically prove his existence, or you must acknowledge that he is a logical fallacy.

The reasoning is that anyone can make any claim regarding non-provable things. You can say there is a god whose existence can not be proven or disproven. I can say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there. Bertrand Russell can say there is a teapot in space, and dank can say that someone at some point has levitated. The point is that either all such non-provable claims are true or they are all false. There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that the existence of god is in some way more likely than the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. And since there can be an infinite number of such claims, we must assume that either all these infinite imaginary things (like gods and monsters and leprechauns and teapots in space) actually exist, or they are all absolutely false.

We obviously can't assume that everything anyone can possibly imagine actually exists. That would probably break the laws of physics, as well as common sense. Therefore we must regard the existence of god (as well as anything else that has been imagined but never proven) as false on logical grounds. There is no need to try to disprove the existence of the infinite number of unproven things. That wouldn't be possible anyway. Rather, the burden is on the person who comes up with these things to prove their existence.

Atheism is not a possibility. It is a logical necessity.


it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism. 

The usefulness of god is irrelevant. Imaginary things don't pop into existence because they are useful. I could sure use about 100,000 BTC in my wallet right now, and yet, the blockchain disagrees...
I am not an atheist because I see no use for god, but because I assume god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
You guys realize you are arguing with dank right?

No one wins an argument with dank....  Cheesy

That is what religion does to person.
I have never been religious.

But after finding my soul and learning my purpose in life along with the other crazy happenings of 2012, I know what's what.  We all do, deep down.

But Andrew is right, you can debate against my points, but it will not stop me from flying.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Fourth richest fictional character

That is what religion does to person.


No, this is what drugs does to a person. I am pretty convinced he used the funds he stole from squall to buy drugs.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
You guys realize you are arguing with dank right?

No one wins an argument with dank....  Cheesy

That is what religion does to person.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
Fourth richest fictional character
You guys realize you are arguing with dank right?

No one wins an argument with dank....  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
Because you all think the flying spaghetti monster debases the reality of god, when it only supports it.

It's not really an argument against God, but against organized religion.

Of course it's an argument against god...
The FSM is just a rehash of Russell's teapot.
It's the best, the oldest, and quite possibly the only argument against god.

FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster.  If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.

If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God; at such a point, if you abandon organized religion, it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism.  Can God appear as a FSM?  I don't see why not.  Is it likely?  No.  Has God been disproven?  In his common incarnations, yes, but not entirely; the idea has no effect on someone who believes in what can't be true, as long as there is a feeling of existence.
full member
Activity: 187
Merit: 109
Converting information into power since 1867
Because you all think the flying spaghetti monster debases the reality of god, when it only supports it.

It's not really an argument against God, but against organized religion.

Of course it's an argument against god...
The FSM is just a rehash of Russell's teapot.
It's the best, the oldest, and quite possibly the only argument against god.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
We will see.  You don't need wings to fly, it resides within the mind.

The extent my powers have gone to has been holding back a piece of a cloud.  When I have organized a million people in front of me I will believe in myself quite a bit more.

Dank, I agree with you.  You don't need wings to fly in your mind.  You can also hold back clouds in your mind.  You can't do it in reality however.

If you ever decide to sober up and try these things in reality, you really should take a camera.  After all, you can make a million dollars off it, repay your debt to squall, AND have money to travel across the US building up your festival.

But you have less than two months remaining.  You said you would get a real life job by the end of 2013 if your concert didn't happen.  Or were you lying again?

Let me disclaim, to be fair: if this doesn't manifest into reality by 2013, 2012 is nothing, concert doesn't happen, I will get a job and pay my dues.
I should be getting a few thousand dollars worth of equipment for my business in the next week.

And bro, my friends saw the cloud stop moving.  Then they were able to do it once they saw me do it.

It's quite simple, all you have to do is believe, beliefs formulate our reality.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
i thought satoshi is our only god  Huh

FSM haven't shown it face to anyone, Satoshi haven't shown his face.

FSM is a god, satoshi is a god.

Erog FSM is Satoshi and Satoshi is FSM.

FSM cave us the Bitcoin!
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1014
In Satoshi I Trust
i thought satoshi is our only god  Huh
hero member
Activity: 683
Merit: 500
I have said that is has always existed before and always will.  Glad to see you're getting the concepts of infinity.

Magic does exist on earth, people encounter small bursts of it more often than you think (at least I have last year).

We just need to train our minds to become more magical.

That's where you skew from actuality.

Magic does not exist in our universe.  We have physical laws in our universe that cannot be broken.  (Yes, that means you did not stop a cloud with your mind.)

If you feel magic does exist, why not prove it, make a cool million dollars, and pay squall back?
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html

Then why have many people broken physics?  Because the universe has no law.  Law is not natural.
Dude, nobody has broken physics.  If a scientific law can be broken, then it's not a law.
You're correct, scientific law is not law, it's theory.

I have witnessed a large lamp jump off a table with nobody around it, several people saw it and were like wtf?

My friend has unintentionally levitated before, several people saw it.

Another friend has witnessed levitation of an iPhone, two people saw it.

My life experiences tell me science is not the final frontier.
Next time you prepare your dinner, what you need are Champignon Mushrooms, not Psilocybe Cubensis. Wink
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Atleast his followers aren't wasting my money, so I'm ok with them.

I still label them as crazy, but I'm just for equality in that respect...
legendary
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
Spaghetti monster, godamnit! Dank, fuck off. You are but a sauce stain on the corner of the mouth of a fat greasy mobster compared to his holy noddleness! No one gives a shit about your flying, when compared to the awesome flying powers of he of great meatballs.
Pages:
Jump to: