do you pray before you fly?

bullwinkle said:
The whole "flying spaghetti monster" BS is really just a way to mock and demean people who have a different view of the Universe than you do. It's a lazy way of having a conversation.

As I have stated before, I'm not religious. But I also have no tolerance for those who mock others' beliefs. I'm not so arrogant as to believe I have all the answers, or even that the ones I think I do have are the rights ones.

This is (very) thinly veiled bigotry, masquerading as humor. I'm not a fan.
Click to expand...

I'm offended that you're mocking my beliefs. I take my pastafarianism very seriously. I hope to see you at the beer volcano.
 
PeeGee said:
I'm offended that you're mocking my beliefs. I take my pastafarianism very seriously. I hope to see you at the beer volcano.
Click to expand...

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
 
Henning said:
I listen.
Click to expand...

she keeps telling you.....
" Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.......":yikes:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
she keeps telling you.....
" Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another....
Lessons not learned in one will be be reintroduced in another.......":yikes:
Click to expand...

Most things I only need to learn once...
 
FastEddieB said:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Click to expand...

Excellent justification for being a douchebag to other human beings. :rolleyes:

Why discuss seriously and try to persuade opposing opinions when you can instead simply mock and ridicule them? After all, if you make them seem foolish and make people reluctant to accept them out of fear of being mocked, you won't have to refute them on their merits! This is the method Saul Alinsky teaches, and it's been successful in dumbing down conversation for decades.

Must be cool to know who's right and wrong all the time, so that you know who to mock.

BTW, Jefferson was a Christian. Mock him while quoting him.
 
bullwinkle said:
Why discuss seriously and try to persuade opposing opinions when you can instead simply mock and ridicule them? After all, if you make them seem foolish and make people reluctant to accept them out of fear of being mocked, you won't have to refute them on their merits!
Click to expand...

Personally, I have gone to great lengths in this thread not to mock or ridicule anyone.

In addition I find the Fying Spaghetti Monster and flying teapots simply forms of argument by analogy or argumentum ad absurdum, and not necessarily meant to ridicule.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
Personally, I have gone to great lengths in this thread not to mock or ridicule anyone.
Click to expand...

Posting quotes about ridiculing others who disagree with you is ridicule by proxy.

If it's so hard to restrain yourself, man up and mock in your own words, rather than being passive-aggressive about it!

:lol:
 
I pray to Jobu. When he doesn't listen I tell him "**** you, Jobu. I do it myself," and pray to Crom. When he doesn't listen I say "to hell with you!"
 
Jay Honeck said:
There's a special place in Heck for you.
;)
Click to expand...

As long as they have rum there I'm good. And a chicken.

Personally, I think atheists and believers are the same. They both make claims about their beliefs being fact. Both make absolute statements with no evidence to back up their claims. Saying "[Deity] is/does..." is the same thing as saying "[Deity] is not/does not..."
 
EdFred said:
As long as they have rum there I'm good. And a chicken.

Personally, I think atheists and believers are the same. They both make claims about their beliefs being fact. Both make absolute statements with no evidence to back up their claims. Saying "[Deity] is/does..." is the same thing as saying "[Deity] is not/does not..."
Click to expand...

Thanks, your statement above is exactly how I feel about it.
 
EdFred said:
Both make absolute statements with no evidence to back up their claims. Saying "[Deity] is/does..." is the same thing as saying "[Deity] is not/does not..."
Click to expand...

Old ground but...

...not so much.

As an atheist, my position is that in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, I will accept the null hypothesis that there is no God. That position is open to change should new evidence arise.

But there seems to be a need to establish a false equivalency: your stated lack of belief in x is exactly the same as my belief in x. It's not.

Perhaps it may be true in the extreme case of a "Strong Atheist", one who believes he or she can prove there is no God. But these seem to be quite rare, in my experience - most atheists simply don't believe in God, and it ends right there.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
As long as they have rum there I'm good. And a chicken.

Personally, I think atheists and believers are the same. They both make claims about their beliefs being fact. Both make absolute statements with no evidence to back up their claims. Saying "[Deity] is/does..." is the same thing as saying "[Deity] is not/does not..."
Click to expand...


I agree. By the same token, it is as likely as not that unicorns exist.

;)
 
EdFred said:
Personally, I think atheists and believers are the same. They both make claims about their beliefs being fact. Both make absolute statements with no evidence to back up their claims. Saying "[Deity] is/does..." is the same thing as saying "[Deity] is not/does not..."
Click to expand...

I would disagree, although it's difficult to argue in generalities. But...

Most atheists would strongly doubt the existence of a deity, but would willingly admit that they cannot know with complete certainty.

Most deists would believe in their deity of choice with complete certainty, at least publicly. And they would also doubt the existence of competing deities with complete certainty.
 
"Most atheists would strongly doubt the existence of a deity, but would willingly admit that they cannot know with complete certainty."

The above is an "Agnostic". An "Atheist" has no doubt.

Cheers
 
FastEddieB said:
Old ground but...

...not so much.

As an atheist, my position is that in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, I will accept the null hypothesis that there is no God. That position is open to change should new evidence arise.

But there seems to be a need to establish a false equivalency: your stated lack of belief in x is exactly the same as my belief in x. It's not.
Click to expand...

Beware of the "black swan" logic trap. No observation of a black swan does not mean that a black swan does not exist (in fact, they do).

Since it cannot be shown conclusively that a deity either exists or doesn't exist, if being objective one must admit that it cannot be determined, with neither the positive or negative case being considered preferable.

You can spend your whole life looking for a black swan in the USA, convinced such a thing simply does not exist. But since black swans are native to Australia, you as making the wrong observation to get positive results.
 
The problem here is not with religion or atheism, but with dogmatism.
 
FastEddieB said:
Old ground but...

...not so much.

As an atheist, my position is that in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, I will accept the null hypothesis that there is no God. That position is open to change should new evidence arise.

But there seems to be a need to establish a false equivalency: your stated lack of belief in x is exactly the same as my belief in x. It's not.

Perhaps it may be true in the extreme case of a "Strong Atheist", one who believes he or she can prove there is no God. But these seem to be quite rare, in my experience - most atheists simply don't believe in God, and it ends right there.
Click to expand...

I consider wording that way a complete cop out. Whether a statement has a negative in it or not is still a claim that requires one to back it (their claim).

A belief is one thing, a statement of "this is/isn't" is another - which is why you are exactly the same as the believers.
 
bullwinkle said:
Since it cannot be shown conclusively that a deity either exists or doesn't exist, if being objective one must admit that it cannot be determined, with neither the positive or negative case being considered preferable.
Click to expand...

Disagree strongly - and I read "The Black Swan".

Lack of evidence pointing to a phenomenon most certainly stacks the cards agains an affirmative case for its existence. The scientific method is kinda based on deciding the validity of any given positive case/negative case imbalance.

Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There could be a God, or prayer could "work" in spite of a dearth of evidence for such assertions.

Taken to the extreme, you seem to be saying that everyone should be a #4, Pure Agnostic, on the scale below:

The-Dawkinss-Scale-300x300.jpg


I don't, and for me the lack of evidence leads me to be a 6.
 
EdFred said:
I consider wording that way a complete cop out. Whether a statement has a negative in it or not is still a claim that requires one to back it (their claim).

A belief is one thing, a statement of "this is/isn't" is another - which is why you are exactly the same as the believers.
Click to expand...

Were we talking about anything less "loaded" than God, it would not be seen as a cop out at all.

If I were to say, "I accept the null hypothesis that homeopathic remedies do not work", based on current knowledge of physics and chemistry, would you also say I have to back up my claim? The logical fallacy there is "shifting the burden of proof".

But a wave of déjà vu is coming over me - like I said, this is old, oft repeated ground. Same arguments, good and bad, made over and over.

Believe, or believe not. Pray, or pray not. Everyone knows my position, so...

...bye!
 
EdFred said:
No. But that's because I think that looks like a single seat aircraft, (I didn't see a second helmet) not because he like to draw an invisible upside down 4.
Click to expand...


2 seater, watch them taxi.

Cheers
 
FastEddieB said:
Were we talking about anything less "loaded" than God, it would not be seen as a cop out at all.

If I were to say, "I accept the null hypothesis that homeopathic remedies do not work", based on current knowledge of physics and chemistry, would you also say I have to back up my claim? The logical fallacy there is "shifting the burden of proof".

But a wave of déjà vu is coming over me - like I said, this is old, oft repeated ground. Same arguments, good and bad, made over and over.

Believe, or believe not. Pray, or pray not. Everyone knows my position, so...

...bye!
Click to expand...

Not in my book. You make a statement (regardless of the subject/positive/negative) it's on you to back it up. Claiming it's a logical fallacy that you aren't required to is also a cop out.

It doesn't bother me what anyone believes - it's when they cross the line and make statement of fact. Theists and atheists both do that.
 
There is this ;

ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics

  1. 1.
    a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
    synonyms:skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic; Moreunbeliever, nonbeliever, rationalist;
    rarenullifidian
    "as far as I know, Stevens was an atheist, or at least an agnostic"




    antonyms:believer, theist
Cheers
 
FastEddieB said:
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them..."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
Click to expand...
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins
 
ralarcon said:
2 seater, watch them taxi.

Cheers
Click to expand...
I would fly with him, but only because (a) I would love to fly the new T-6 Texan II, and (b) I was raised Christian, so I see the sign of the cross as fairly common and benign.

If he bowed to Mecca, would you fly with him?

(An aside: Wow, those air force planes are clean. We parked next to three T-6s yesterday in Victoria, TX, and they were scummy, dirty, corroded naval trainers that looked like they had been rode hard and put away wet.)
 
FastEddieB said:
Taken to the extreme, you seem to be saying that everyone should be a #4, Pure Agnostic, on the scale below:

The-Dawkinss-Scale-300x300.jpg
Click to expand...

I'm not saying what anybody should be. What I'm saying is that for questions that have no current answers, no matter where you fall on that chart, you shouldn't judge or ridicule where another falls on it.

You may claim to be a 6, but your reactions to people further up make you appear as a 7. Dawkins, who made the chart, is a 7.
 
Last edited:
God walks among us, well in the woods, for God is bigfoot. Everyone sees him but no one can catch him. Totally makes sense, and after all that crucifx business having the power you'd be foolish not to walk the earth as a badass apeman.
 
To me Atheism is sort of like the red pill/blue pill in the Matrix. Religion is the blue pill..you believe whatever you want to believe without the consequences of having to critically reflect upon the finality of your life. Atheism is the red pill: there's no comfort from a belief in a God watching over me, but there is a different sort of comfort in the freedom to try to logically explore reality.

I also like to think of religion as being an adult Santa Claus. Santa Claus is wonderful for children and brings them lots of joy, but at the end of the day I'm glad I'm not sitting here believing in Santa Claus.

I hope I didn't offend anyone too much with those comments. It is a topic that I find very interesting, maybe because I was quite religious growing up...and as mentioned previously, I certainly don't think less of any individual when their beliefs don't fall in line with my own.
 
Henning said:
Can anyone tell me what good comes from atheism?
Click to expand...

I could write entire chapters on examples of evil being committed in the name of religion. Name almost any major religion and I will provide such examples. Can you provide examples of evil being committed in the name of atheism?
 
ClimbnSink said:
God walks among us, well in the woods, for God is bigfoot. Everyone sees him but no one can catch him. Totally makes sense, and after all that crucifx business having the power you'd be foolish not to walk the earth as a badass apeman.
Click to expand...


Being irreverant doesn't work if you capitalize god.

:nono:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top