Religion

[scooterscot]

Islamic State throws man to his death 'for being gay'

Prophet says no to toast being butter side up

Islamic State throws man to his death 'for being gay' - Telegraph

Pictures emerge of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant fighters apparently throwing a man from a building because he was gay

[unixman]

The spaghetti monster isn't a silly argument - it's just the same old, and perfectly valid, reductio ad absurdum that we all use all of the time. They are trying to get you to understand that "why?" is a very important question, which typically has no answer.

LOL. It is nowhere near ad absurdum. There is no evidence for a spagetti monster specifically, but there is (some) evidence for the existance of God. Jesus was keen on fish, if that helps.

Many atheist arguments founder because they address the possibility of a finite God, not an infinite one. The strongest argument against the existance of God circumvents all that, and it is this, voiced by Billy Connolly, among others: "I just can't believe all that mumbo-jumbo !". It sounds like a joke but is, I think, is why many atheists don't believe. And it causes me to question my belief.

Incidentally, I have respect for atheists in the original sense - just people who don't believe in God. I mean, it is not an unreasonable position to hold. I have no time for dick-heads calling themselves "atheists" who, with all the zeal of the recently converted, hector others to believe <whatever> or disbelieve <whatever>. Their goal is not to enlighten or to help anyone, just to obtain self-validation. To which end they use threadbare pub memes, like pastafarian, in an attempt to make others look foolish. I laugh, because pastafarian is funny, and so are the people who think it is a weighty argument.

[AtW]

there is (some) evidence for the existance of God.

What's the evidence?

[SpontaneousOrder]

I am not sure that was ever the official Catholic position. It certainly hasn't been for the last 50 years.

They're all in purgatory in the beginning of 'inferno' (alongside everyone who lived before baptism was a thing - except the virgin Mary who had a special pass) - and I *think* Dante Alighieri was Catholic back in 13 hundreds.

Then again, Thomas Aquinas spent his time wondering what someone would look like, after the end of the world when the dead rise, if they had their leg bitten off and eaten by a crocodile. Would they be missing a leg? Would the crocodile suddenly be missing some flesh (which it grew on the nourishment of the eaten leg) which now belongs to the man again ?

So I'm not sure that'd make it official.

[AtW]

So I'm not sure that'd make it official.

No, it wouldn't unless I say so!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Many atheist arguments founder because they address the possibility of a finite God, not an infinite one.

They address the fact that the rational default position is to not believe a thing unless there is a reason to believe that thing. I.e. existence bears the burden of proof - not non-existence.

The 'arguments' only exist because theists tend to be sufficiently mentally damaged that they are unable to understand the former, so pointing out contradictions and absurdities is an attempt to make them realise that they aren't thinking straight.

The arguments over contradictions etc are entirely superfluous - atheism has no need for them. They are in no way core (or even relevant) to the atheist position. They are an attempt to humour the theist in the hope that they will see the absurdity of their thought process.

claims like "Many atheist arguments founder because they address the possibility of a finite God, not an infinite one. " are all straw-men.

[darmstadt]

What's the evidence?

[SpontaneousOrder]

LOL. It is nowhere near ad absurdum. There is no evidence for a spagetti monster specifically, but there is (some) evidence for the existance of God.

Your answer implies that the idea of a spaghetti monster *is* absurd. But whatever...

In this case, the correct response to someone invoking the reductio ad absurdum line of reasoning would be to say "that doesn't hold though - there is evidence for the existence of God". And then if you want them to believe that you're not just making stuff up, you could say what that evidence is.

The argument isn't faulty - it's just a simple comparison used to highlight a point. If that point is invalid, then it's your responsibility to point out why.

It's probably easier to just think up insulting names for them instead though, so fair do's.

[SpontaneousOrder]

What's the evidence?

I hope you fairly attribute it. There'll be nobel prizes and all sorts for such a discovery.

[unixman]

My point is that Christianity is more than an arbitrary postulation invented in a moment, whereas our tasty carbonara friend obviously isn't. Christianity derives from multiple sources including eye witness accounts, the great tagliatelle one (may he bless us) derives from one source, and that source says they made it up.

None of which proves existance in God, which as I said, is unproveable either way in my view. If you think you can (dis)prove it, your notion of God is perhaps different from mine.