The Religious "Ask Skeptic" Thread (With Apology To The Atheists)

[skeptic54768]

I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

Only with pasta sauce. Without...it's just noodles.

-Nam

Skeptic,

Did my comment hurt your feelings? Of all the names I've called you it takes this comment for you to smite me?

Who's being childish? You, 'cause you're a fucking moron, and everyone knows it.

-Nam

Nam, I take the insults because I am trying to be like Christ. Christ didn't curse at the ones beating him and laughing at him. He just kept walking by.

Your post was insulting to the Eternal King and THAT is something I do not tolerate. Insult me all you want, but don't do that to the Creator.

[skeptic54768]

Since we know spaghetti is material in nature, we know spaghetti can not be the cause of the universe. It's ridiculous to think so.

God is immaterial.

There is a difference. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has contingent qualities and properties.

Define "immaterial" and what it means in this context.

Immaterial is something that is not material. For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought.  Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."

[skeptic54768]

I have two questions

Where do you think the physical laws of the universe come from, humans, gods, or the universe itself?

Have you ever destroyed a demon as you suggested you would do?

God made the laws. If there were no laws imagine how chaotic the universe would be. Sometimes things would freeze at 45 degrees Fahrenheit. other times things would freeze at 17 degrees fahrenheit. Sometimes thins would fall up into the sky and sometimes they would fall down. it would be absolute no holds barred pandemonium.

[skeptic54768]

^^^ I've asked him something similar three times now, and I have been ignored on each occasion. I guess it's just too hard for him so he does the dodge dip and dive to avoid answering.

I am sorry. You must have missed it:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25917.msg586219.html#msg586219

Unacceptable. You have avoided my question for the FOURTH time now. A refresher for you...

Skeptic, please define for me what you believe defines a OneTrueChristian.

Please use point form, and be as specific as possible. I will not accept vague answers, I want the truth from you and I want it now. If ALL other religions are wrong, please convince me that yours is the correct one, and give valid reasons why.

I am sorry. I can not explain it anymore simple than that.

Jesus never told his disciples to go to Church every Sunday. Jesus didn't say to worship his mom. Jesus didn't say to beg people for money so you can buy a Rolls Royce and 2 mansions.

[Add Homonym]

Your post was insulting to the Eternal King and THAT is something I do not tolerate. Insult me all you want, but don't do that to the Creator.

Tut, tut, Nam. You have insulted the icing on the nonexistent cake.

[skeptic54768]

Tut, tut, Nam. You have insulted the icing on the nonexistent cake.

Are these discussions just a big joke to you?
Do you take them seriously?

[Add Homonym]

You don't take them seriously. You consistently refuse to make a case that the creator is, in fact, your God.

[skeptic54768]

You don't take them seriously. You consistently refuse to make a case that the creator is, in fact, your God.

Haven't you heard of the argument from motion? The unmoved mover is God. The only other option is infinite regress and that's nonsensical because you can't have a beginning with infinite regress so nothing would ever be able to be in motion right now so there must be an unmoved mover that started things in motion.

This is a plain as day slam dunk argument.

[MadBunny]

Allow me to translate:



SPAG

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/SPAG

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/10/christianity-is-self-projection-as-god/

[Angus and Alexis]

God is immaterial, and only material things can affect material things.

Therefore god has no meaning, and can be dismissed, as he cannot affect anything that we know of other than stuff like thoughts?

[Foxy Freedom]

God made the laws. If there were no laws imagine how chaotic the universe would be. Sometimes things would freeze at 45 degrees Fahrenheit. other times things would freeze at 17 degrees fahrenheit. Sometimes things would fall up into the sky and sometimes they would fall down. it would be absolute no holds barred pandemonium.

When it suits you to protect your worldview, scientific knowledge is based on god. When it suits you to protect your worldview, scientific knowledge is based on humans.

You have contradicted yourself like this before to protect your worldview. Your worldview is falling apart.

Science was made up by humans so they are just guessing how old these things are by assuming the methods are true.

It's circular. You can't validate the scientific method by using the scientific method.

[The Gawd]

face it... skep is a troll. May as well  just treat a chew toy like a chew toy.

[Traveler]

face it... skep is a troll. May as well  just treat a chew toy like a chew toy.

Yup.

[Graybeard]

So, to remind you, “What is the nature of Jesus?” Man or God?

Graybeard, this is very simple.

Jesus is 100% man (the flesh) and 100% God (The eternal soul)

I think this is one of those things that is “simple to the simple.” You seem to have learned a formal and simply repeated it without understanding it.

I’m sorry, but the idea of there being 100% twice does not seem very simple. Could you expand upon this please?

As I understand it, and from the verses I have given, an adult Jesus has been in heaven (I assume as a spirit not a human) since before Creation. That spirit was then placed inside a fetus in a virgin’s womb. Jesus’s spirit would have been aware of this at all times, including directly after His birth.

So you seem to imply that Jesus consisted of God’s spirit inhabiting a human body and that the Spirit of God is aware that it is occupying a human body.

If this is so, the Spirit of God must have known that it was indestructible. It must have known that the body that it inhabited could be destroyed.

So the Cricifixion is rather like your driving your old clunker of a car to a wreckers’ yard, getting out of the car and then seeing it crushed. There is no pain for the car and all you have lost is a car that was worthless and your life continues as usual.

So, where was this sacrifice? Jesus started in Heaven and ended up back in heaven, didn’t he?

[Graybeard]

The unmoved mover is God. The only other option is infinite regress and that's nonsensical because you can't have a beginning with infinite regress so nothing would ever be able to be in motion right now so there must be an unmoved mover that started things in motion.

This is a plain as day slam dunk argument.

Can you explain why what you have just said is any different from "I can't understand it, therefore God-did-it?

[Aaron123]

Immaterial is something that is not material.

Not a very helpful definition.

For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought. 

Oh yes we can.  We're perfectly capable of scanning brain activity nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_scan

Not to mention there are loads of evidence that humans thoughts exists.  You're typing on one such example now.  Not to mention books, movies, and painting.

Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."

I don't even believe that there is such a thing as a "immaterial soul".  So this is an irrelevant point.

[skeptic54768]

Immaterial is something that is not material.

Not a very helpful definition.

For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought. 

Oh yes we can.  We're perfectly capable of scanning brain activity nowadays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_scan

Not to mention there are loads of evidence that humans thoughts exists.  You're typing on one such example now.  Not to mention books, movies, and painting.

Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."

I don't even believe that there is such a thing as a "immaterial soul".  So this is an irrelevant point.

You can not scan the thought and see what the person is thinking. That is how we know it is immaterial. Do you think doctors can scan a thought and say, "Oh you are thinking about a car right now?"

Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

[Traveler]

...Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

Ridiculous. There is MUCH evidence that others feel pain and have thoughts. Observation, reactions, responses to medication, changes in brain activity, psychological testing, and much, much more. You really are stretching aren't you?

[skeptic54768]

Can you explain why what you have just said is any different from "I can't understand it, therefore God-did-it?

OK, you have the floor.

At one point there was no universe. Then at another point there was a universe. What caused the universe? If you believe in Big Bang, it says time, space, and matter began at the Big Bang. So, what caused it?

[skeptic54768]

...Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

Ridiculous. There is MUCH evidence that others feel pain and have thoughts. Observation, reactions, responses to medication, changes in brain activity, psychological testing, and much, much more. You really are stretching aren't you?

I don't believe you have read about the philosophical zombie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1]

When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).

[median]

I am curious about this.

Don't atheists think their own viewpoint is correct and everything else is wrong? You guys make fun of Christians for having "absolute truth" but you guys claim to have the "absolute truth" as well.

I'm sure I would get more respect if I came to your side and started saying things like, "Wow I was such an idiot! You guys are right! There is no God!"

I would probably be congratulated and become liked.

You are quite wrong here actually - and this is b/c you continually choose to force non-belief (atheism) into 'a belief' (aka - you misrepresent my position and that of non-believers). Yet, that is self-contradictory. Atheism is simply non-belief in a god or gods (nothing more). There is no claim about "absolute truth" as we have no use for such claims. They are a red-herring to the subject. If you said, "There is no God" I would answer by saying that you can't know that. All you can do is withhold judgement b/c there is no sound demonstrable evidence of one (just like you can't know there are no unicorns). And that would make you agnostic about the question (which you should be).

[Foxy Freedom]

At one point there was no universe. Then at another point there was a universe. What caused the universe? If you believe in Big Bang, it says time, space, and matter began at the Big Bang. So, what caused it?

Causality developed during the first minutes of the universe. Your question is based on lack of knowledge. If you do not understand science, just say you do not understand science, don't make up rubbish.

Causality of the universe is an unnecessary assumption which has to be proved.

[median]

Immaterial is something that is not material. For example, a thought is not material. it is immaterial. Nobody has ever empirically observed a thought.  Just like how your immaterial soul inside of you can't be empirically observed. You can see your flesh, but you can't see the spirit inside of you that makes you "you."

This is not an actual definition b/c you haven't defined WHAT "immaterial" is. All you've tried to do is say what it is not. That is redundant. You need to actually define what-it-is. What is it's makeup? What are it's characteristics? I could say "A unicorn is not a duck". It says nothing.

The problem again here is, you have no reliable way of actually separating fact from fiction. You are practicing intellectual hypocrisy due to your confirmation bias toward your personal interpretation of the bible.

[Aaron123]

You can not scan the thought and see what the person is thinking. That is how we know it is immaterial. Do you think doctors can scan a thought and say, "Oh you are thinking about a car right now?"

Again, we can do brain scans.  We can detect brain activities.  We know (generally speaking) what brain chemistry does.  When someone asks about a car, we can detect which parts of the brain "lights up".  This "exacting thoughts of a person" thing is just misdirection.

Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain.

You're typing on a computer.  That is evidence of someone's thinking (since someone had to think and engineer a computer in the first place).  You are arguing with other people (a sign that their thoughts differs from yours).  Books, paintings, poems, and movies exists.  All of which springs from someone's imagination.

As for feeling pain, if you really think that others do not feel pain, then throw rocks at them.  Go ahead.  Since they won't feel pain, what's the harm?

They could be philosophical zombies.

Define "philosophical zombies".

You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

False Dichotomy.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

False Dichotomy.  Thoughts and pain can be tested.  They are not faith-based.  Are we really going to get into the whole "christian telling atheist how to think" thing again?

[median]

You can not scan the thought and see what the person is thinking. That is how we know it is immaterial. Do you think doctors can scan a thought and say, "Oh you are thinking about a car right now?"

Besides, there's no evidence that other people think and feel pain. They could be philosophical zombies. You just BELIEVE everyone else has thoughts but you can only be sure of yourself, thus solipsism is the only logical position for the atheist.

If you BELIEVE others have thoughts and feel pain, you are basing it on faith, which opens the door to have faith in God. Otherwise it's hypocritical to deny God but believe in thoughts and pain.

You've already been refuted when it comes to solipsism but we'll review. If you think solipsism is true then you don't get out of it by merely positing some 'thing' you call "God". Get it? Anyone can posit anything and it does nothing to sufficiently answer the claim. By positing solipsism you have just put yourself in the same boat as everyone else and you don't escape it by a mere arbitrary assertion (like Berkeley tried). If solipsism is true, then it's true for you likewise! Adding more mere claims to the top doesn't get you out of it.

Second, your first sentence commits the fallacy of the Argument from Incredulity. So stop using it. Even if it were true that we could not tell what others were thinking (which it is not, entirely - see links below) this wouldn't say anything about your mere assertion being right. Just b/c you can't imagine how a brain can produce consciousness without some 'immaterial soul' thing doesn't at all mean your mere claim is the correct one. You actually need sound reasoning here - not more fallacious arguments.

There is plenty of evidence that other people think and feel pain. But you have a hypocritical standard of evidence that only allows in your personal biased interpretation of what counts as 'evidence'. Of course you don't accept the evidence. Practicing confirmation bias can certainly make you do that. I asked you before, by what standard do you use to most reliably determine what is true from what is false in the world. You never answered.

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring07/cos424/papers/NormanEtAlTICS.pdf
http://singularityhub.com/2010/03/17/fmri-reads-the-images-in-your-brain-we-know-what-youre-looking-at-video/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10617288
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-06/brain-scans-predict-your-behavior-better-you-can

[median]

I am sorry. I can not explain it anymore simple than that.

Jesus never told his disciples to go to Church every Sunday. Jesus didn't say to worship his mom. Jesus didn't say to beg people for money so you can buy a Rolls Royce and 2 mansions.

That's right, you cannot explain it in any way that is outside your personal interpretation of that book. You have no reliable ("objective") method for judging who is a "true" Christian and who is not b/c all you have is your own personal subjective interpretation of it. Take a taste of your own medicine Mr. "objective absolute truth".

Second, there is no record of Jesus' actual words (from his own hand). All you have is stories about stories. It's all based on oral tradition (hear-say based on hear-say) 70 years after the alleged events - one person told another person who told another, and so on down the line. None of that demonstrates the truth of the claims that are found in there and it certainly does not demonstrate that your interpretation is the right one.

[Nam]

I have a question.

Is, or is not the Flying Spaghetti monster the real god?

Only with pasta sauce. Without...it's just noodles.

-Nam

Skeptic,

Did my comment hurt your feelings? Of all the names I've called you it takes this comment for you to smite me?

Who's being childish? You, 'cause you're a fucking moron, and everyone knows it.

-Nam

Nam, I take the insults because I am trying to be like Christ. Christ didn't curse at the ones beating him and laughing at him. He just kept walking by.

Your post was insulting to the Eternal King and THAT is something I do not tolerate. Insult me all you want, but don't do that to the Creator.

You failed.

Oh, fuck your "Eternal King" and the imaginary horse it rides like a pony and fuck you, too.

Smite that.

-Nam

[DVZ3]

All Christians are like people that pack a large bag that nobody else can see planning to go on a trip. Their trip is a place they are absolutely sure exists but you cannot find this exotic, heavenly destination on a map and you cannot go to this designation while alive.  They pack this large bag for the hope that in death they will go to the better of the 2 places that they not only made up but packed their bag properly for and even developed a relationship with the so-called ruler of this exotic place they once again made up.

All Christians pack their bags with different stuff all claiming that they have all the right stuff for the trip. Every Christians bags are different colors, shapes and sizes and yet all claim they still have not only the right bag but the right stuff packed.

When people who don't have these bags question why they have the bag and what they have packed they always get different answers and reasons for the bag they've picked and what the contents of the bag are. When people who don't have bags point out what others have or don't have in their bags the person currently holding their bag in front of us quickly point out why the other bags are wrong and some of the contents are wrong.

Myself being a person without a bag learn over time that the people with the bags seemingly get the decision that the bag is needed because of the type of family and how they were raised making them feel like they require the bag themselves.  The color, shape, and size of the bag is generally picked by geography as well as the contents which vary from location to location.

Anyways, you all can keep your bags if you feel they are necessary as well of your content that always seem to change with time, geography and bag person to bag person. But please don't tell me that you can't understand why we don't believe you even need to the bag let alone most of its contents. More importantly please don't tell me why we think the underlying reason for the bag and it's contents is for the hope and of a relationship with the ruler of a destination that can only be attained in death.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, all we ask for is a little and the common courtesy of thinking about the real reasons you feel you need your invisible bag with your own special contents. Ask yourself what is more likely vs unlikely in life and not only will you be more open and honest with yourself, you'll sound more credulous and reasonable.

[median]

I don't believe you have read about the philosophical zombie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1]

When a zombie is poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain though it behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain).

NO, p-zombie is indistinguishable from FICTION. I deny the claim that such a "zombie" is even possible (as per Loar 1990, among others) and the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate such a claim.