How do you feel about the flying spaghetti monster argument?

Question

I know those who promote it are trying to make a point but I think it is a bad stratedgy to argue a point you don't really believe in to try and dismantle an argument which people do believe in. That being said I think those who promote this might be embarassed at how easily it could be disproven. Your thoughts?

Sure Lynus. If in courtroom situation would you admit to believing this? And then submit to taking a lie detector test? If proven wrong which is likely you would lose all credibility. Now Christianty has a list of notable lawyers who have come out in favour of the gospel writers being credible. Including such names as Hugo Grotius, Professor Simon Greenleaf, Sir Lionel Luckhoo, "the most successful lawyer in history", Lord Hailsham, Sir John Anderdson and a whole slew more. If possible obtain a book called leading lawyers look at the resurrection by Ross Clifford or the case for Chirst by Lee Strobel. Again proclaiming a faith in the spaghetti moster would be easily exposed as an uncredible belief and thse holding them would appear desperate. To promote a belief you don't believe in is only setting yourself up for a downfall.

Unfortunately the only noodly appendages would appear to be in the minds of those holding them.

ID theorists are not interested in naming who the creator is or is't but only to show that there is evidence for design. But this evidence cannot be shown to students because those who are uncomfortable with it have religated it to relgion. Confusing a theory with implications of a theory. The big bang is another example of a scientific theory with possible religious implications. Doesn't mean the big bang isn't scientific.

Lynus I was attempting to help you. Any appeal to the absurd is a weak argument. You are basically arguing a position you have already admitted you don't believe. As opposed to a view point that even if you don't agree with you would have to admit is much more logical as stated by those legal minds who if you reserched you would see they hold significant sway in the legal field. As opposed to some unknown people you cite. As fr this being a bad stratedgy. A lawyer would try to use a stratedgy that he hope would convince a jury. Arguing a view point that you have already admitted you don't really believe would only increase your chance of failure. And any attempts to try and dig deeper to convince people you really believe in the FSM would only lead to your own credbility falling inot question on not only this matter but other issues. Can someone claiing to believe in the FSM be considered competant as a lawyer. Further investigation inot those who also say they believe would be expose

Indy have you ever read any of the books I hve mentioned? Then on what basis can you weigh there evidence?

As far as scinetology although I don't believe its tenets i think you are in a better position of arguing a position if you actually do believe it. Otherwise you run the risk of insincerity being clearly visible.

A smarter stratedgy is to try and argue what you do believe or the inconsistancies in your opponents argument. To appeal to an absurdity only increases your chance of appearng absurd.

I ould encourage those open minded ones to check out either of those books for themselves as this forum would be much too limited. But I would also suggest not to dismiss an argument that your not familiar with.

Lius I would agree that many that hold the ID postion are Christian but they do include other faiths and include agnostics.

May scientists concede that if tere is a big bang then there is a good chance of there being a God. Again there is a differnce between God as a philisophical assumption and state sponsered religion. It is possible that so would want to use this argument to promote their own assumptions but that is what is already happening by those who only allow for philisophical materialism.

My point is there is no comparison between trying to compare an absurd argument with one that has much evidence for it. The use of this style of argument is to try and make both appear equally absurd but when exposed for what it is it is a disingeneuos attempt to discredit your opponents view point but runs a greter risk of backfiring and calling into question why you are willingly embracing disingenous arguments. That being said I apoligize for the massive typos.

Frog a belief system can hardly be said to be credible if none of its adherants who claim to believe it can pass a lie detector. Imagine arguing your belief in a spaghetti monster in a court room. So there is no demonstratobly true evidence as compared with the gospel messages which the authors were willing to die for. One of the few contributers of the first bok I mentioned was the famed super sleuth Sir Robert Anderson twice knighted by Queen Victoria and a former attourney. As a lawyer, Chief detective, and secret service operative he had the necessary background to investigate the testimony of the witnesses which he believed would be accepted in any fair tribunal in the world. He also sated the resurrection is a public fact accredited by the evidence which will stand the test of discussion and verification. And the many other names I mentioned were reputable law names. Hugo Grotius is considered the father of international law. Simon Greenleaf defined what is and isn't admissable.

I would argue that it does matter who professes to believe. In a court they would ike to know if witnesses have any expertise or training in the matters they represent.

Answer 1

He has made a good point on the subject.

Answer 2

You're missing the point entirely.

It makes no difference that no-one really believes in the FSM and it is all known to have been made up by a miffed professor. The point is, even after all that, the concept and premise is still every bit as credible, reasonable and demonstrably true as any mainstream religion.

Just as sane people should not. and do not, have a right to teach Pastafarianist theology as fact, neither should mainstream religion be afforded that arbitrary freedom. Mainstream religion fails the same tests by which Pastafarianism is judged unworthy.

It matters not a jot who professes to believe in either.

Answer 3

Please disprove it then.

So basically your arguement is that "so and so" believes in this so I must too and no I wouldn't just believe anybody including those who agree with me just because someone said it, but rather on the evidence and you haven't provided evidence for it, just citations. You didn't even disprove any other religions. I'm sure I can find atheist lawyers that would disagree on the amount of evidence for Jesus, so what is your point?

The only point that FSM shows is that if you are going to allow God to be taught in science and the classroom then you have to allow all other. Yes, FSM is made up but we don't know that about other religions so they have to be included also. The main crux of FSM is that the majority of those who wanted ID in the classroom were evangelical christians who would want Jesus being the only God that would be considered.

You have got to be kidding me, the true idea behind ID is the belief in Jesus and Jehovah considering like I said that the vast majority of those fighting for this are evangelical christians. The only reason they do not name the creator in public is because they would say the christian god and wouldn't get anywhere.

The big bang theory and evolution are totally separate from ID and creationism because the former do not NEED a god or a natural world to work. ID and creationism by definition do.

Answer 4

it does illustrate a good point, that belief in the supernatural does have a ridiculous side. Plus it's quite funny.
Granted that religion can on philosophical grounds be quite thought provoking and has inspired some great art and music, but fundamentalists have dragged it down into blind unthinking dogma, and for me the spaghetti monster is a great send up of these mental pygmies.

Answer 5

When faced with such a ridiculous argument such as faith versus evidence, then the only thing to do is to ridicule, as in this day and age faith is ridiculous. Plus the flying spaghetti monster hasn't had blood spilled in his name yet, a pretty squeeky clean religion really, gotta be a good thing eh eh eh eh.......I also don't recall any blood being spilt in Scientologies name eh, what about that as a religion!!??

Answer 6

How is this a poor strategy? In order to allow religious followers to understand our mindset toward their God(s), we have to give them an example that they couldn't possibly believe in. The fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster CAN be easily disproven (or at least is impossible to put faith in due to just how ridiculous the whole idea truly is) is precisely our point.

Answer 7

I think it's just fun, and it does make a point about invisible all powerful beings somewhere in the sky. Some people are taking it a bit far... but it's still fun.

Answer 8

The FSM was created to point out how ridiculous creation theories can be. It's also great fun and very tasty. ARGG!

Answer 9

Is there any truth to the rumors that the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" is the illegitimate son of "Chef boyardee"?

Answer 10

I personally would eat him alive. Preferably with some Tabasco.