Its so sad atheist cannot believe in the simple fact that a massive invisible noodle god watches over all of us and created this universe with tasty sauce. We when I am up in the pasta after life with strippers and beer we will see who gets the last laugh.
Ha, that should Dawkins. His evil atheist ways will never stop the truth of the flying Spaghetti monster. I just hope Dawkins gets the holy touch of his noodly appendage.
OK I'm pretty sure I saw this video of Dawkins before because I even looked up why he struggled to answer the question (Which had nothing to do with spaghetti.. Huffers2002 has clearly dubbed over the 1st question...) and it had something to do with him being tricked into the interview and was completely unprepared.. Right? Anyone else seen the original?
You wreteched heathens will not be bathed in the holy Beer Volcano in Spaghetti Paradise. Hence, I laugh at you, poor souls without salvation! May his Noodly Appendage bless you, so you can repent!
@9009Hayden I think it's starting to be difficult to discern. Based on tge replys here it does seem like someone is taking it very seriously...and then the whole point of the flying spaghetti monster becomes redundant.
I like that he doesn't really answer the question, and his faillure to come up with reply is hilarious. This is a man who knows how to not take himself seriously
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?
@1tabligh Lalalalalalala, I will not listen to anything you say nor will I answer any of your questions! Instead I will pity you, call you a devil worshipper, and hope that someday you will come to see the glory that is the Teapot.
@RiskyCricket Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, the duped atheists can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
@RiskyCricket This means that the duped atheists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
@RiskyCricket In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception,
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
Nobody will ever believe what you want them to believe if you're boring. You need CHARISMA. You need to be EXCITING and NEW, and not just write things that you think prove your point. Because what you're writing is unbelievably dull. It was neat and interesting at first. But now it's not, because you're droning.
Since you're boring me, you no longer have any purpose. So I'll just erase you, like I do to all the people whom I lose interest in.
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@ErgoProxy12345 If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
@1tabligh i don't know if i should consider your comment a troll on mine but...oh well. I think a multiple god hypothesis would be more plausible than a single perfect god (as it seems he screwed up on earth) . The greek gods had hierarchy so it gives order yet they oppose each other. thus, a good follower of Athena can be striken down by Ares for example. A good muslim striken down by Allah doesn't make sense yet it happens all the time.
and we know more about the universe than you think.
@1tabligh btw, quoting a religious book doesn't mean squat untill the book's heavenly origins has been proven true. I once put salted water in unsalted water and it mixed perfectly: Quran OWNED!
@ErgoProxy12345 Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
@ErgoProxy12345 unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
@1tabligh and yet, in thousands of years of listening tho the "words of god", human progress pretty much stalled but now, after 1 or 2 hundred of going our seperate way, we are speaking from thousands of miles away using electrical impulse driven machines capable of incredible feats! like we both are right now! Science works bitches! and by the way, can the world make up its mind and come with a definite answer to WHICH god we should listen to? some of them gotta be false (maybe all...)
@ErgoProxy12345 Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
@1tabligh Tell me, how do you discern a false religion from a true one? the only false religion i know of is the church of FSM because no pastafarian is stupid enough to actually believe in it... we just do cause its funny and there is beer involved. Still: how would you know a holy book is true and another is false? you claim we attack based on false religion but how do you know your ancestor weren't tricked into believing in a pile of dog turd?
@ErgoProxy12345 Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
@1tabligh so you say the results of analysing religion is bad because the "real" religion hasn'T been inspected? to that i would say, if the "real" god favors his believers, then their prosperity should be abnormaly high and when we look at history, i would have to say that its either Buddha or Zeus that is real as when there were christianity, well lets just say its called the dark ages. And look at muslim countries right now. the most prosperous people were those taking things(...)
@1tabligh (...) in their own hands, implying that either god cannot help us (maybe by lack of existing) or doesn't want to help us however much we pray, making religions useless.
no god ever helped anyone and probably never will so lets stop bothering with invisible-man and lets start doing something constructive.
and don'T say a result is illogical simply because the analysis doesn'T agree with you. the result follows the datas and therefore IS logical. Maybe erroneous but not illogical.
@ErgoProxy12345 It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by 'science'.
@1tabligh i think it's actually very logical as the foundation of a good life is in having at least enough wealth to live well and security to not die a horrible death at the hands of the world around you. Having big cities is a good way for that.
What i find illogical is that you seem to think there are religions not based on revelations. Thay all are! that is why they are religions! And why its easy for anyone to forge one! and that is why i discard them as false untill proven true.
@ErgoProxy12345 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh no one ever said that they produced themselves and then decree laws. What happened is that we observed different particles that we named hydrogen, oxygen, etc. We know they exist and we observed that this is how they react. They never reacted in any different way ever so we called it a law (if you find something contradicting this, we will change it amd award you a Nobel prize). We KNOW they exist because they are observable. How exactly they came to be? we don't know for sure.
@1tabligh but not knowing doesn't entitle you to make up a god or another type of fairy tale to fill in the gap. As modern physics grow, we find more and more plausible explanations for that kind of question that doesn't require the presence of anything for which we don't have a motive to believe. For example: we may never have a proof of a multiverse but it is consistent with the math that, for everything else, fit with what we see. this isn't faith but trust earned through results.
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh there are no (well, not amongst intelligent people) science worshippers. Why do believers always have to worship something? anyway, science has earned respect through results. For example, we are discussing from different parts of the world with computers following the laws of electricity. If science was wrong on that, we wouldn't be. Science is not a holy book but a way of searching for truths and eliminating errors in the best way possible. AND IT FKN WORKS!
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
@1tabligh this is called special pleading. Everything needs a cause, but god doesn't. If everything needs a cause, so does god. If not, maybe the universe don'T need a cause either.
anyway, the string theory argument is way more plausible than any one god story since all the bible, torah, quran claims were proven false again and again. And there is the problem of evil: god cannot be all-loving/knowing/powerfull at the same time. Since your god is, then he does not exist in this world
@ErgoProxy12345 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
@ErgoProxy12345 "Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
@1tabligh "what does god need of a spaceship?" James T. Kirk
"with great power comes great responsabilities" Spiderman's uncle Ben
and no we do not think we created ourselves. and i'd like to see what your scientific expertise or sources is.
quoting a book will not, as i said earlier, prove your point. espescially if that book is full of crap like salted water not mixing with pure water or the earth being flat.
The Holy Qur'an does not define the age of the universe in any way. Science so far is not able to tell exactly when the universe began. The Holy Qur'an had been introduced in a non-scientific age when people were not able to conceive the stretch of time into billions or millions of years.
@ErgoProxy12345 Had the Qur'an stated that the stars were originated billions of years ago, people may have rejected the whole concept of Islam. The Qur'an, therefore, wisely kept silent on this matter. To be true, you do not need to tell all of what you know of truth; you need only to refrain from misinforming the people. Thus, the door was kept open to any scientific theory, so the religious information will not clash with any scientific knowledge.
@ErgoProxy12345 also, the water mixing thing, how do you refute it?
___
The Quran on Seas and Rivers:
Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density. For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water.
@ErgoProxy12345 When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth
Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.
The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet
@ErgoProxy12345 And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)
One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?
Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been
@ErgoProxy12345 that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.” This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water
This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc.
@ErgoProxy12345 The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).
@1tabligh If the quran was written by an all knowing god, he would a) have included knowledge like the billions on years old universe and a spherical world, b) have knowned how to tell it to people.
your 7 paragraph explanation is not explaining anything and talking about "divisions" between lake and rivers but that is not what i asked. also, that division is only in name and has no physical barrier to speak of. maybe there is an area where the mixing is occuring faster but it is hardly blocked.
@ErgoProxy12345 Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider
a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with an atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
@1tabligh we don't believe that those books are dictated by a god because they never contain knowledge that was not readily available to the guy writing it or that couldn'T have just been made up. Some stories may be compelling in many ways but no more then Jack and the magic beans. As you said, it would be futile to rely on it when speaking to atheist so stop quoting!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
@1tabligh and yet, creating a belief may make the event occur! Like telling people about the end of the world might make people stop working and thus, destroy economy. This is called self fullfiling prophecy.
Also, on quantum level, we are finding that some events seem to have a cause in the future. That seems wacky but with advance physics, we find weird stuff where common sense don't apply. And when we test it, it works. We have the common sense of people living in middle world as dawkins said
@ErgoProxy12345 The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
@1tabligh do you know that most laws of common sense break down at very very large scale or very very small scale? or even at fast speed? just look at fluid flowing at supersonic speeds. It goes faster if the volume in which it traves goes larger. This is against regular common sense but i personnaly tested it. Common sense is good but has limits. Especially when talking about the super high energy state at which the big bang took place
@ErgoProxy12345 Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin
@1tabligh and we never see with our own eyes something being 2 different things at once but we can prove photons are both particles and waves! we never nee something being at 2 places at once but that is what electrons do on a regular basis. What we derive from common sense is NOT applicable for the big bang where all the energy and matter of the universe is condensed.
we are now even putting causality in question! think about that
@ErgoProxy12345 What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
@1tabligh in the presence of natural forces yes. ever saw sand dunes? they look all orderly but they are made with randomly shaped and placed grains of sand. If you roll the dice long enough, you might get 10 6s in a row! out of the universe of randomness, there will be at least a pocket of what seems like order. In chaos, coincidences do occur and those that see the occurence will think it was for them to see but its just that we happened to be here.
@ErgoProxy12345 Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
@1tabligh how do you even assume to know that? and have you ever though of anti-being? if there is as much anti-being as there are beings, the sum total is 0. hence "nothing" was created. You really need to see deeper down the rabbit hole that is quantum physics and relativity. Newtonian physics is not the way to go to look at the universe and its inner workings. it works for everyday life but that's it
@ErgoProxy12345 The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
@1tabligh in the observable world, that seems like a reasonable assumption BUT it does not necesseraly work on the quantum level or with gigantic speed and energy. Not only that but you still haven't demonstrated that, if it happens to be true for the universe, the god making the universe is yours. And also that this god didn't need creation himself.
@ErgoProxy12345 Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
@ErgoProxy12345 If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
@1tabligh that's a big "if" you are using. And you still have not proven that such a being exist. The FSM not only qualifies in this regard but he ALSO fits all the scientific discoveries as he uses his noodly appendage to play with scientific results.
You make big leaps from "the universe began" to "i know the cause is a god" to "its my god and he wants worship in this manner" when we are not even sure the universe has a cause yet.
@ErgoProxy12345 Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
@ErgoProxy12345 If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
@1tabligh then let me ask you:if everything has a cause, what caused god? same problem. The thing is, we are not answering that question yet because we can't for the moment. Still, your god is as improbable as any other and there are proof the quran contains falseness (it may even be mostly false then).
We are also discovering that in some circomstances, the question of what was before the big bang might not even make sense. What is north of the north pole? it might be the same thing.
@1tabligh I love how every religion's god is the one true god. Unfortunately, there is just as much evidence for the existence of the false gods as there is for your true god. Which is to say, none at all.
I would think one of the "true gods" would have the courtesy to appear to us and say "Seeing as your immortal soul is on the line, I think you should know that *insert religion here* is the true religion." Instead they send a prophet, to spread their word to a fraction of the world.
@Zero9656 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
@Mugzy619 As long as you believe in the every word of the FSM (which includes a better alternative to evolution), you will feel the warm love of FSM's giant meat balls and you will go to heaven (stripper factories and beer volcanoes).
But if you speak blasphemy like evolution, you will feel the wrath of FSM in the form of syphilis and stale beer and boil in red hot spaghetti sauce.
So the FSM gives you Free Will to choose.. why can't you appreciate Him.
The title says someone is desperately looking for a crack in his armour.
He is a man and human and imperfect. Unlike Jesus of course. The religious are the shame of modern mankind. May you all realise soon that you are alone and will soon die. So eat up.
Just throwing this out there, The Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be disproved by science. It's existence rests in faith alone. Using science to disregard faith is totally the wrong way to view Pastafarianism. It really annoys me the close mindedness of blasphemers like Richard Dawkins.
Notice how he clearly dodges the question, and proceeds to answer his own, just like a lying politician. When will Atheists face the facts and stop trying to deny the Almighty FSM.
@nanerrat the lessons from the lose canon wich state I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thou shalt have no other monsters before Me. (Afterwards is ok . just use protection ) so remmber your protection on the unicorn ok :) keep being great Ramen
@badgescops YOU GODLESS HERETIC!!! Dare you to blaspheme the name of the great horned one? Get on your knees and beg his forgiveness or spend eternity being boiled in lime Kool-Aid.
FSM is a false god created by SATAN to lure the faithfull from his holy hornyness. (maybe angel hair pasta w/ alfredo sauce I could believe)
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
Propoganda! In a monetary system, democracy is an illusion perpetuated to give the populace a feeling of participation in a so-called democratic process.
"but merely to show that this man who is at the forefront of the modern-day evolutionist movement does not have an answer for the most fundamental question to what he proclaims"
You simply lied. there are no elements of satire only fraud.
So now we are related to fish this guy just wont give up. Maybe you atheists are related to fish and monkeys and apes but I'm related human beings that were created by God. Richard Dawkins has nothing that proves the evolution process. I guess that evolution process missed Mr Dawkins because he is still at the level of a nutcase. And were suppose to take this guy seriously??
Yes, because he can offer serious scientific evidence for his claim, while you propose a fairytale written in one of a thousands "holy book" which by sheer luck managed to survive until today. Even the pope now admits that evolution is a fact (altough he sustain it happened following god's plan, the intelligent design theory) yet YOU say that its all bullshit. Yeah, i'll take your word over those of world renowned scientists any time. Just give me some time to become retarded like you^^
@Origami84 Explain why it is that the earth is in what is called the goldy lox zone a scientific term, or an area that allows life to exist at all. Why we aren't closer or farther from the sun. Scientific evidence of a woldwide flood. Not just in the bible but other religous books also. Why are there so many languages and not just one? What started the big bang? Where does morality come from? Do atheists know everything about everything? How do you know we believers are wrong?
Earth IS in a position that allowed life, thats what we know. We dont know if there is a reason or it was just sheer coincidence-which is a definite possibility, altough a humbling ones for us "the sun rotates around us" humans. I dont know about this evidence of flood you speak of: i know that even if it happened could have been natural. Bring me evidence of Noa and the ark, if you think this "flood" is a proof of god. continue in part2
Part2 Many holy books speak of the flood, but all say "their" god caused it. They cant all be right, buit they can all be wrong and the flood be of natural origin. The number of languages depends from the groups of humans scattered on the planet, unable to create and keep a unite one... i think, contact an expert in old languages. Noone knows what caused the bigbang, but there are no scientific elements that suggests a supernatural explanation. see you in part 3
Part 3 The origin of morality is a debatale issue: my opionion is that derives from human feelings and us being social animals. Think of them as an upgraded version of animal instincs: mothers take care of their cub, we human do it AND say its the right thing to do. Atheist dont know everything, but 1) we dont like those who make bullshit explanations for unanswered question and 2) have strong faith in what has been proven - like evolution. Part 4 for you best question
Part 4 How do i know believers are wrong? From one side, there are no proof of god existence. A "holy book" which could be easily be written by men, and it probably is considering how its full of bullshit scientific explanation of ancient age, is NO proof. 2nd, the existence of a large number of religions along history show the human habit of creating gods. Zeus, allah, krishna ecc. Yet every believers believed his god to be the right one. They cant be ALL right, they CAN be all wrong.
Part 5 What else to add? I answered most of your question, but i dont expect you to actually counter them on a scientific way. Faith means believing even without evidence-that is in fact the very core of all religions. You parents, priests, imams, monks tell you the god X esist and you believe them. Some of us, the atheist, dont just believe tough. We know better that to trust the 1st idiot who open his mouth, especially on somthing SO important. We are sceptic of "revealed truths" END
@Origami84 You offer the typical atheist garbage for answers. That is, no answers just accusations at people of faith with nothing to back it up. When do you egotists begin answering questions? You say evolution has been proven. When? Where? How? It's as though you all go to the same class for trying to debate the issue of faith and learn, "Just accuse them, ask them question and verbally slash them open before they get a chance to ask you any questions. That way, we win." Idiots!!!
You have internet at your disposal: USE IT. Starts with the evolution entry in wikipedia. Visit websites of natural history, then visits some museum in your country. Look for the informations, read them, understand them. Learn HOW darwin came up with his theory, his famous voyage. Learn of the recently discovered fused chromosome in our dna that show how we have a common ancestors with apes. Unlike religion evolution is not based only on some obscure and scientifically wrong holy book
@Origami84 I've done those things in the past and found enormous gaps of necessary information in the theory. Again - you dodge the question by trying to appear intellectually superior and cast dispersion on "scientifically wrong holy" books without any evidence for your accusations. Typical egostistical atheist. Explain how the fusion produced more DNA than the chimps? Fusion would likely destroy some of the DNA not produce 150,000 more base pairs of DNA. Next question?
Gaps are not mistakes, neither contradictory evidence. Since we are dealing with a long and complex process some detail may be obscure but the overall picture is clear. If you are not a bible nuts, of course. As for your question, im no dna expert so i'll lead you to the "Chimpanzee genome project" entry in wikipedia. But let ME make a question now-which theory do YOU support? The "creation by god"? Are you severe on the evolution one, but ready to accept any unproved bible bullshit?
Gaps are not mistakes, neither contradictory evidence. Since we are dealing with a long and complex process some detail may be obscure but the overall picture is clear. If you are not a bible nuts, of course. As for your question, im no dna expert so i'll lead you to the "Chimpanzee genome project" entry in wikipedia. But let ME make a question now-which theory do YOU support? The "creation by god"? Are you severe on the evolution one, but ready to accept any unproved bible bullshit?
@GodOfUnbelief theres no evidence that the greath spaghetti monster punishes, my personal belief is that it will only bring you spagethi after death :x
Some idiot tried to tell me evolution was real the other day. But there is no earthly explanation for how pasta can end up looking so perfectly twirly.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
This has been flagged as spam show
Its so sad atheist cannot believe in the simple fact that a massive invisible noodle god watches over all of us and created this universe with tasty sauce. We when I am up in the pasta after life with strippers and beer we will see who gets the last laugh.
thesparitan 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ha, that should Dawkins. His evil atheist ways will never stop the truth of the flying Spaghetti monster. I just hope Dawkins gets the holy touch of his noodly appendage.
Reman.
thesparitan 1 week ago
R'amen my brothers and sisters
TDog688 2 weeks ago 4
OK I'm pretty sure I saw this video of Dawkins before because I even looked up why he struggled to answer the question (Which had nothing to do with spaghetti.. Huffers2002 has clearly dubbed over the 1st question...) and it had something to do with him being tricked into the interview and was completely unprepared.. Right? Anyone else seen the original?
meimtheonlyone 2 weeks ago 6
@meimtheonlyone However, if I'm right then this has been very well done.. and I liked it anyway :)
meimtheonlyone 2 weeks ago
Ramen.
itookurpoptart 2 weeks ago
Praise Be to Yevon
SonsOfLiberity 2 weeks ago
Ramen.
Khanin2718 1 month ago
Haha the fool clearly can't disprove fsm! ! RAmen!!
INMATE2468 1 month ago
Mhm, you just keep blinkin' Rich.
MarkArandjus 1 month ago
@StrawberryRizla lmao
DragonsREpic 1 month ago
Blink one more fucking time. I dare you.
drumlord159 1 month ago
»»───(Knee)───►
freexspirit1 1 month ago
You wreteched heathens will not be bathed in the holy Beer Volcano in Spaghetti Paradise. Hence, I laugh at you, poor souls without salvation! May his Noodly Appendage bless you, so you can repent!
gorgurus 2 months ago
He's real, I believe it and will kill everyone who dissagrees
MrROTD 2 months ago
@9009Hayden I think it's starting to be difficult to discern. Based on tge replys here it does seem like someone is taking it very seriously...and then the whole point of the flying spaghetti monster becomes redundant.
Kasino80 2 months ago
I like that he doesn't really answer the question, and his faillure to come up with reply is hilarious. This is a man who knows how to not take himself seriously
Kasino80 2 months ago
The power of Balls compels you.
b0nsai76 2 months ago
In the name of the sauce, I denounce you heretic!
Mrsexypants1988 2 months ago
Hoax
TheSurrealcast 2 months ago
@irishamerican Were you drinking when you saw the video?
WeAreAllBleach 2 months ago
All of you are barbarian fools, with your spaghetti monsters and your pink unicorns!
Repent and praise the Celestial Teapot, and all shall be forgiven! Bless the Teapot, and its Holy orbit about the sun.
RiskyCricket 2 months ago 6
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh Lalalalalalala, I will not listen to anything you say nor will I answer any of your questions! Instead I will pity you, call you a devil worshipper, and hope that someday you will come to see the glory that is the Teapot.
RiskyCricket 2 months ago
@RiskyCricket Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, the duped atheists can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh EXACTLY! And that being is the CELESTIAL TEAPOT! How can you not see this? It's so obvious! You will burn for your doubt of the Teapot.
RiskyCricket 1 month ago
@RiskyCricket This means that the duped atheists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You are going to burn so much in the Hole of Boiling Oolong, because you haven't accepted the Teapot into your heart. REPENT.
REPENT NOW.
RiskyCricket 1 month ago
@RiskyCricket In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception,
1tabligh 1 month ago
@RiskyCricket nor the power of decision.
Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.
Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh You're boring me. :|
Nobody will ever believe what you want them to believe if you're boring. You need CHARISMA. You need to be EXCITING and NEW, and not just write things that you think prove your point. Because what you're writing is unbelievably dull. It was neat and interesting at first. But now it's not, because you're droning.
Since you're boring me, you no longer have any purpose. So I'll just erase you, like I do to all the people whom I lose interest in.
Goodbye.
RiskyCricket 1 month ago
@RiskyCricket Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.
How do deluded and duped atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh the eternal flying spaghetti created your god! all hail tomato sauce and meatballs!
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 If numerous gods ruled over the world and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.
If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!
Quran 21: 22
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i don't know if i should consider your comment a troll on mine but...oh well. I think a multiple god hypothesis would be more plausible than a single perfect god (as it seems he screwed up on earth) . The greek gods had hierarchy so it gives order yet they oppose each other. thus, a good follower of Athena can be striken down by Ares for example. A good muslim striken down by Allah doesn't make sense yet it happens all the time.
and we know more about the universe than you think.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@1tabligh btw, quoting a religious book doesn't mean squat untill the book's heavenly origins has been proven true. I once put salted water in unsalted water and it mixed perfectly: Quran OWNED!
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Man's religious ties are an outgrowth of his nature, and materialism is something opposed to his nature. In accordance with his specific make-up, man will create his own god if he does not discover the true God, and the god he discovers may be nature or historical inevitability. This fa;we god takes the place of the true God with respect to comprehensiveness of authority, effectiveness of decree, and capacity to guide man on a certain path and propel him forward,
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 unhindered by anyone's desires. This is the source of the trade in false gods, the adherence to the new idolatry, that would cruelly sacrifice God to history and exchange a pearl for a bead. Alas that so many people smitten with self-inflicted abjection have bowed down before the idol they themselves have fashioned and deified! They have turned away from the peerless creator and willingly accepted the polluting disgrace of such misdirected worship.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh and yet, in thousands of years of listening tho the "words of god", human progress pretty much stalled but now, after 1 or 2 hundred of going our seperate way, we are speaking from thousands of miles away using electrical impulse driven machines capable of incredible feats! like we both are right now! Science works bitches! and by the way, can the world make up its mind and come with a definite answer to WHICH god we should listen to? some of them gotta be false (maybe all...)
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Western intellectuals were aware only of the superstitious aspect of false religion and how the established dogmas of religion lacked all logical basis, so they had no hesitation in condemning religion as such to be baseless. Their judgment was based on their discouraging experiences with their own religion, and it could not fail, then, to be hasty, unrealistic, irrational and illogical.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh Tell me, how do you discern a false religion from a true one? the only false religion i know of is the church of FSM because no pastafarian is stupid enough to actually believe in it... we just do cause its funny and there is beer involved. Still: how would you know a holy book is true and another is false? you claim we attack based on false religion but how do you know your ancestor weren't tricked into believing in a pile of dog turd?
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Scholars are agreed that religious beliefs have always been intertwined with human life. However, their opinions differ concerning the fundamental roots of religion and the factors that have played a primary role in its establishment and development. Their judgments, in this respect, are generally based on studies of superstitious religions and primitive beliefs, with the result that their conclusions are, in the final analysis, defective and illogical.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so you say the results of analysing religion is bad because the "real" religion hasn'T been inspected? to that i would say, if the "real" god favors his believers, then their prosperity should be abnormaly high and when we look at history, i would have to say that its either Buddha or Zeus that is real as when there were christianity, well lets just say its called the dark ages. And look at muslim countries right now. the most prosperous people were those taking things(...)
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@1tabligh (...) in their own hands, implying that either god cannot help us (maybe by lack of existing) or doesn't want to help us however much we pray, making religions useless.
no god ever helped anyone and probably never will so lets stop bothering with invisible-man and lets start doing something constructive.
and don'T say a result is illogical simply because the analysis doesn'T agree with you. the result follows the datas and therefore IS logical. Maybe erroneous but not illogical.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by 'science'.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh i think it's actually very logical as the foundation of a good life is in having at least enough wealth to live well and security to not die a horrible death at the hands of the world around you. Having big cities is a good way for that.
What i find illogical is that you seem to think there are religions not based on revelations. Thay all are! that is why they are religions! And why its easy for anyone to forge one! and that is why i discard them as false untill proven true.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh no one ever said that they produced themselves and then decree laws. What happened is that we observed different particles that we named hydrogen, oxygen, etc. We know they exist and we observed that this is how they react. They never reacted in any different way ever so we called it a law (if you find something contradicting this, we will change it amd award you a Nobel prize). We KNOW they exist because they are observable. How exactly they came to be? we don't know for sure.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@1tabligh but not knowing doesn't entitle you to make up a god or another type of fairy tale to fill in the gap. As modern physics grow, we find more and more plausible explanations for that kind of question that doesn't require the presence of anything for which we don't have a motive to believe. For example: we may never have a proof of a multiverse but it is consistent with the math that, for everything else, fit with what we see. this isn't faith but trust earned through results.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
What is called science by the science-worshippers of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of reality, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh there are no (well, not amongst intelligent people) science worshippers. Why do believers always have to worship something? anyway, science has earned respect through results. For example, we are discussing from different parts of the world with computers following the laws of electricity. If science was wrong on that, we wouldn't be. Science is not a holy book but a way of searching for truths and eliminating errors in the best way possible. AND IT FKN WORKS!
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 if everything has a cause, what caused god?
____
The Creator of the universe cannot be preceded by non-existence; otherwise, He would need another god to create Him; and that god, if he is preceded by non-existence, would need another god and so on. Thus, we would have an endless chain of gods without reaching a **causeless cause** to be the source of the existence of the universe.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Then we have to deny the existence of the universe. We would also have to deny ourselves because we are a part of the universe.
But you say to yourself: I cannot do that because I am here. Then you have to say: God is there.
His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh
1-we exist because we are here asking the question
2-the universe is there because we see it and that is what we call the place we are in
3-god exists because...bleh. your argument breaks down here. this is the baseless assumption you are making.
as Carl Sagan said: why not save a step and say the universe was always there.
we never saw its beginning so we think there might be a beginning. How do you know causality was in effect there?
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@1tabligh this is called special pleading. Everything needs a cause, but god doesn't. If everything needs a cause, so does god. If not, maybe the universe don'T need a cause either.
anyway, the string theory argument is way more plausible than any one god story since all the bible, torah, quran claims were proven false again and again. And there is the problem of evil: god cannot be all-loving/knowing/powerfull at the same time. Since your god is, then he does not exist in this world
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 From a scientific point of view, the self-origination of matter is impossible; the theory that the material world is constantly evolving and advancing toward higher states is clearly contradictory to scientific data and the realities of nature. All development and motion in the mineral realm is due either to the intervention of a will external to matter or to attraction, interchange, and compounding with other bodies.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 "Do they imagine that they've been created without any cause, or do they suppose that they are their own creators?" The Quran (52:36) "Have they created the heavens and the earth ? They have no certain belief in what they say" (52:37) Do they have a Lord other than God? No, it is not so; God is exalted above the partners they ascribe to him." (52:43) "Glorified be He in Whose hand is all sovereignty and Who has power over all things." (67:1)
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh "what does god need of a spaceship?" James T. Kirk
"with great power comes great responsabilities" Spiderman's uncle Ben
and no we do not think we created ourselves. and i'd like to see what your scientific expertise or sources is.
quoting a book will not, as i said earlier, prove your point. espescially if that book is full of crap like salted water not mixing with pure water or the earth being flat.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 earth being flat.
___
And where did you pull that from?
I am not a Christian!
I am a Shiite Muslim!
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh show me where it says otherwise. also, the water mixing thing, how do you refute it?
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 show me where it says otherwise.
___
The Holy Qur'an does not define the age of the universe in any way. Science so far is not able to tell exactly when the universe began. The Holy Qur'an had been introduced in a non-scientific age when people were not able to conceive the stretch of time into billions or millions of years.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Had the Qur'an stated that the stars were originated billions of years ago, people may have rejected the whole concept of Islam. The Qur'an, therefore, wisely kept silent on this matter. To be true, you do not need to tell all of what you know of truth; you need only to refrain from misinforming the people. Thus, the door was kept open to any scientific theory, so the religious information will not clash with any scientific knowledge.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 also, the water mixing thing, how do you refute it?
___
The Quran on Seas and Rivers:
Modern Science has discovered that in the places where two different seas meet, there is a barrier between them. This barrier divides the two seas so that each sea has its own temperature, salinity, and density. For example, Mediterranean sea water is warm, saline, and less dense, compared to Atlantic ocean water.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 When Mediterranean sea water enters the Atlantic over the Gibraltar sill, it moves several hundred kilometers into the Atlantic at a depth of about 1000 meters with its own warm, saline, and less dense characteristics. The Mediterranean water stabilizes at this depth
Although there are large waves, strong currents, and tides in these seas, they do not mix or transgress this barrier.
The Holy Quran mentioned that there is a barrier between two seas that meet
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 and that they do not transgress. God has said:
He has set free the two seas meeting together. There is a barrier between them. They do not transgress. (Quran, 55:19-20)
But when the Quran speaks about the divider between fresh and salt water, it mentions the existence of “a forbidding partition” with the barrier.
God has said in the Quran:
He is the one who has set free the two kinds of water, one sweet and palatable, and the other salty and bitter.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 And He has made between them a barrier and a forbidding partition. (Quran, 25:53)
One may ask, why did the Quran mention the partition when speaking about the divider between fresh and salt water, but did not mention it when speaking about the divider between the two seas?
Modern science has discovered that in estuaries, where fresh (sweet) and salt water meet, the situation is somewhat different from what is found in places where two seas meet. It has been
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 that what distinguishes fresh water from salt water in estuaries is a “pycnocline zone with a marked density discontinuity separating the two layers.” This partition (zone of separation) has a different salinity from the fresh water and from the salt water
This information has been discovered only recently, using advanced equipment to measure temperature, salinity, density, oxygen dissolubility, etc.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 The human eye cannot see the difference between the two seas that meet, rather the two seas appear to us as one homogeneous sea. Likewise, the human eye cannot see the division of water in estuaries into the three kinds: fresh water, salt water, and the partition (zone of separation).
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh If the quran was written by an all knowing god, he would a) have included knowledge like the billions on years old universe and a spherical world, b) have knowned how to tell it to people.
your 7 paragraph explanation is not explaining anything and talking about "divisions" between lake and rivers but that is not what i asked. also, that division is only in name and has no physical barrier to speak of. maybe there is an area where the mixing is occuring faster but it is hardly blocked.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Islam demands from its followers to believe in God, the Creator of the Universe, but it does not advise them to base such a belief on the statement of any religious book or any authoritative words, not even the word of the Holy Qur'an or of the holy Prophet. Our belief in a holy book, such as the Qur'an, or in a holy prophet, such as Mohammad, must be preceded by our belief in God. A religious book is holy because it is introduced by a man whom we consider
1tabligh 1 month ago
a prophet. Prophethood is conceivable only if there is God, because a prophet is a messenger of God. Our belief in God, therefore, must come before our belief in a religious book or a prophet, not vice versa.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345
No religious book is believed by all people, and no prophet is universally recognized. Therefore, it would be *futile* to rely on an authoritative statement of a prophet or a holy book when dealing with an atheist who disclaims all heavenly revelations and denies the whole concept of God.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh we don't believe that those books are dictated by a god because they never contain knowledge that was not readily available to the guy writing it or that couldn'T have just been made up. Some stories may be compelling in many ways but no more then Jack and the magic beans. As you said, it would be futile to rely on it when speaking to atheist so stop quoting!
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh and yet, creating a belief may make the event occur! Like telling people about the end of the world might make people stop working and thus, destroy economy. This is called self fullfiling prophecy.
Also, on quantum level, we are finding that some events seem to have a cause in the future. That seems wacky but with advance physics, we find weird stuff where common sense don't apply. And when we test it, it works. We have the common sense of people living in middle world as dawkins said
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 The link between cause and effect and the principle that *no* phenomenon will set foot on the plain of being *without* a cause, are among the strongest deductions ever made by man and count as indispensable conditions for intellectual activity. They represent something natural and primordial, assimilated automatically by our minds.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh do you know that most laws of common sense break down at very very large scale or very very small scale? or even at fast speed? just look at fluid flowing at supersonic speeds. It goes faster if the volume in which it traves goes larger. This is against regular common sense but i personnaly tested it. Common sense is good but has limits. Especially when talking about the super high energy state at which the big bang took place
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Imprisoned as we are within the four walls of matter, we *never* encounter anything accidental in life, and, indeed, no one ever encountered, in the history of the world, an accident *not* arising from a cause. Were this not the case, we might have an excuse for regarding the universe as accidental in origin
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh and we never see with our own eyes something being 2 different things at once but we can prove photons are both particles and waves! we never nee something being at 2 places at once but that is what electrons do on a regular basis. What we derive from common sense is NOT applicable for the big bang where all the energy and matter of the universe is condensed.
we are now even putting causality in question! think about that
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 What kind of accident might it be that from the dawn of being to the present has guided the infinite interactions of all things, in so wondrous, precise and orderly a fashion?
Can the order we perceive be the reflection of mere accident and happenstance?
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh in the presence of natural forces yes. ever saw sand dunes? they look all orderly but they are made with randomly shaped and placed grains of sand. If you roll the dice long enough, you might get 10 6s in a row! out of the universe of randomness, there will be at least a pocket of what seems like order. In chaos, coincidences do occur and those that see the occurence will think it was for them to see but its just that we happened to be here.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Any supposable phenomenon in the universe was submerged in the darkness of non-being before it assumed the form of being. It *cannot* pierce the darkness of non-being and step forth on the plain of being as an existent thing *until* the powerful hand of causality sets to work.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh how do you even assume to know that? and have you ever though of anti-being? if there is as much anti-being as there are beings, the sum total is 0. hence "nothing" was created. You really need to see deeper down the rabbit hole that is quantum physics and relativity. Newtonian physics is not the way to go to look at the universe and its inner workings. it works for everyday life but that's it
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 The relationship between cause and effect is the relationship between two existing things, in the sense that the existence of one of them is *dependent* on the existence of the other. Every effect has a relationship of affinity and harmony with its cause, since the effect draws its existence from the cause. This specific relationship *cannot* be destroyed or replaced by another.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh in the observable world, that seems like a reasonable assumption BUT it does not necesseraly work on the quantum level or with gigantic speed and energy. Not only that but you still haven't demonstrated that, if it happens to be true for the universe, the god making the universe is yours. And also that this god didn't need creation himself.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Whenever you consider the quiddity of a thing that has an identical relationship to being and non-being, neither of them being rationally essential for it, that thing is technically designated as "contingent," in the sense that there is *nothing* within its essence necessitating either being or non-being. If a thing in its own essence requires its own non-being, then its existence is *impossible*.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh so?
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 If being emerges from within the essence of a thing in such a way that reason cannot regard it as dependent on anything else, the existence of that thing is designated as necessary. It is an independent being, free of all need and subsisting by means of its own essence; its existence is the source of all other beings, while it is *not* subject itself to any need or condition.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh that's a big "if" you are using. And you still have not proven that such a being exist. The FSM not only qualifies in this regard but he ALSO fits all the scientific discoveries as he uses his noodly appendage to play with scientific results.
You make big leaps from "the universe began" to "i know the cause is a god" to "its my god and he wants worship in this manner" when we are not even sure the universe has a cause yet.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 Material existence *cannot* in any way acquire the attribute "necessary," because the existence of any compounded material entity is conditional on the existence of the parts that comprise it; it is dependent on its own parts both for its origin and for its survival.
1tabligh 1 month ago
@ErgoProxy12345 If in the course of developing the argument of the orderliness of the universe we attempt to prove the existence of a maker similar to the human maker, the divine maker will, in reality, also be a created being on the level of man; proving the existence of such a maker is an entirely different matter from proving the existence of the Maker and Creator of all being.
1tabligh 1 month ago
We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?
You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"
1tabligh 1 month ago
@1tabligh then let me ask you:if everything has a cause, what caused god? same problem. The thing is, we are not answering that question yet because we can't for the moment. Still, your god is as improbable as any other and there are proof the quran contains falseness (it may even be mostly false then).
We are also discovering that in some circomstances, the question of what was before the big bang might not even make sense. What is north of the north pole? it might be the same thing.
ErgoProxy12345 1 month ago
@1tabligh I love how every religion's god is the one true god. Unfortunately, there is just as much evidence for the existence of the false gods as there is for your true god. Which is to say, none at all.
I would think one of the "true gods" would have the courtesy to appear to us and say "Seeing as your immortal soul is on the line, I think you should know that *insert religion here* is the true religion." Instead they send a prophet, to spread their word to a fraction of the world.
Zero9656 1 month ago
@Zero9656 Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion.
1tabligh 1 month ago
so he is saying that evolution doesnt exist anymore? he is so dumb
irishamerican8790 2 months ago
PASTA FUCK YEAH!
punctualbird 2 months ago
LOL i love it, doing exactly what the theists do. Plant there own bullshit questions in.
peteq1972 3 months ago
Does FSM not love me if i believe in evolution?
Mugzy619 3 months ago
@Mugzy619 As long as you believe in the every word of the FSM (which includes a better alternative to evolution), you will feel the warm love of FSM's giant meat balls and you will go to heaven (stripper factories and beer volcanoes).
But if you speak blasphemy like evolution, you will feel the wrath of FSM in the form of syphilis and stale beer and boil in red hot spaghetti sauce.
So the FSM gives you Free Will to choose.. why can't you appreciate Him.
rAmen !
test123ok 3 months ago 4
@Mugzy619
he loves all
lordpatthethird 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Enjoy your eternal life of hot beer and ugly lap dancers Dawkins.
Punkero245 3 months ago
I like how these joke arguments are exactly the same as real religious arguments
Yetaxa 3 months ago
Spaghetti Akhbar
0299792458 4 months ago
Yaaarrrrrrrr!
MrDeepwoodtickles 4 months ago
The title says someone is desperately looking for a crack in his armour.
He is a man and human and imperfect. Unlike Jesus of course. The religious are the shame of modern mankind. May you all realise soon that you are alone and will soon die. So eat up.
Clearflight89 4 months ago
This was the funniest silence of all time.
I laughted SOO hard!
Rein6teins 4 months ago
Just throwing this out there, The Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot be disproved by science. It's existence rests in faith alone. Using science to disregard faith is totally the wrong way to view Pastafarianism. It really annoys me the close mindedness of blasphemers like Richard Dawkins.
Jossos 4 months ago 20
FSM boiled for our sins my brothers and sisters, praise his name, R'amen
westside1love 4 months ago 3
Notice how he clearly dodges the question, and proceeds to answer his own, just like a lying politician. When will Atheists face the facts and stop trying to deny the Almighty FSM.
veggiescrub 4 months ago
am i the only christian here
hello333able 4 months ago
@hello333able Save your soul by purchasing the gospel of FSM. The rapture is coming, spread the word!
markusboyd3 4 months ago
@markusboyd3 sorry
hello333able 4 months ago
fsm is a pirate god
hello333able 4 months ago
Is this whole spaghetti monster thing a real religion, or is it a parody that I should support
9009Hayden 4 months ago
Mashspaghettiallah!
The only God is the giant spaghetti monster!
And his noodly appendage is his messanger!
GodOfUnbelief 4 months ago
Blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink, blink
siralucard19 4 months ago
The tangle pixy watches over u and your headphones in your pocket. blessings
MrIhaveacat 4 months ago
I dont like spaghetti, therefor I dont believe in the FSM.
The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the ONE TRUE GOD!!!!
nanerrat 4 months ago
@nanerrat the lessons from the lose canon wich state I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Thou shalt have no other monsters before Me. (Afterwards is ok . just use protection ) so remmber your protection on the unicorn ok :) keep being great Ramen
badgescops 4 months ago
@badgescops YOU GODLESS HERETIC!!! Dare you to blaspheme the name of the great horned one? Get on your knees and beg his forgiveness or spend eternity being boiled in lime Kool-Aid.
FSM is a false god created by SATAN to lure the faithfull from his holy hornyness. (maybe angel hair pasta w/ alfredo sauce I could believe)
Invisable Pink Unicorn Is the ONE TRUE GOD
Praise His mighty Horn
;)
nanerrat 4 months ago
Ramen!! Stupid atheists can't see that all the evidence points to spaghetti!!! Ramen!!
INMATE2468 4 months ago
18 people were not touched by his noodley appendage.
zipjay 4 months ago
I made some spaghetti for dinner tonight. Coincidence?
pirateblarny 5 months ago
Thank His Noodlyness that He is an actually forgiving God, unlike some jealous desert deities I could name. :3
N0tsaved 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 5 months ago
He wasn't stumped at all.He was totally absurd.
Zodist 5 months ago
Haha stupid atheists!!!!! They havent been touched by his noodles yet poor atheists
INMATE2468 5 months ago
Pastafaristas de mundo unidos. Ramen
manotascoco21 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
Propoganda! In a monetary system, democracy is an illusion perpetuated to give the populace a feeling of participation in a so-called democratic process.
/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
ubuntuguruCOZA 5 months ago
@ubuntuguruCOZA
Dude, don't spam the forums with unrelated videos, that's not cool.
N0tsaved 5 months ago
@StrawberryRizla rfuck you and fuck everybody that even looks like you ! Get the fuck out of here !
TheCappiix 5 months ago
The beginning is a fake.
There is no background noise at all. While the off camera person is talking.
Down load it for your self and run it through the audio analysation tool of your choice .
torrid426 5 months ago
@torrid426 That video is made to make fun of people like you. And yes, you didn't get it, so apparantly this video works.
GraffitiRevolution 5 months ago
@GraffitiRevolution
No one is fooled.
You did something stupid and called it satire.
You claim
"but merely to show that this man who is at the forefront of the modern-day evolutionist movement does not have an answer for the most fundamental question to what he proclaims"
You simply lied. there are no elements of satire only fraud.
torrid426 5 months ago
Ever wonder why there's a new flu vaccine every year? Hint: evolution.
linkmot1 5 months ago
Lol !!! Tupid atheists cant clearly see thT the world was made by fsm!!
RAmen!!!
INMATE2468 6 months ago
So now we are related to fish this guy just wont give up. Maybe you atheists are related to fish and monkeys and apes but I'm related human beings that were created by God. Richard Dawkins has nothing that proves the evolution process. I guess that evolution process missed Mr Dawkins because he is still at the level of a nutcase. And were suppose to take this guy seriously??
arecuk1 6 months ago
@arecuk1
Yes, because he can offer serious scientific evidence for his claim, while you propose a fairytale written in one of a thousands "holy book" which by sheer luck managed to survive until today. Even the pope now admits that evolution is a fact (altough he sustain it happened following god's plan, the intelligent design theory) yet YOU say that its all bullshit. Yeah, i'll take your word over those of world renowned scientists any time. Just give me some time to become retarded like you^^
Origami84 6 months ago
@Origami84 Explain why it is that the earth is in what is called the goldy lox zone a scientific term, or an area that allows life to exist at all. Why we aren't closer or farther from the sun. Scientific evidence of a woldwide flood. Not just in the bible but other religous books also. Why are there so many languages and not just one? What started the big bang? Where does morality come from? Do atheists know everything about everything? How do you know we believers are wrong?
arecuk1 6 months ago
@arecuk1
Do you expect all these answers in 500characters?
Earth IS in a position that allowed life, thats what we know. We dont know if there is a reason or it was just sheer coincidence-which is a definite possibility, altough a humbling ones for us "the sun rotates around us" humans. I dont know about this evidence of flood you speak of: i know that even if it happened could have been natural. Bring me evidence of Noa and the ark, if you think this "flood" is a proof of god. continue in part2
Origami84 6 months ago
@arecuk1
Part2 Many holy books speak of the flood, but all say "their" god caused it. They cant all be right, buit they can all be wrong and the flood be of natural origin. The number of languages depends from the groups of humans scattered on the planet, unable to create and keep a unite one... i think, contact an expert in old languages. Noone knows what caused the bigbang, but there are no scientific elements that suggests a supernatural explanation. see you in part 3
Origami84 6 months ago
@arecuk1
Part 3 The origin of morality is a debatale issue: my opionion is that derives from human feelings and us being social animals. Think of them as an upgraded version of animal instincs: mothers take care of their cub, we human do it AND say its the right thing to do. Atheist dont know everything, but 1) we dont like those who make bullshit explanations for unanswered question and 2) have strong faith in what has been proven - like evolution. Part 4 for you best question
Origami84 6 months ago
@arecuk1
Part 4 How do i know believers are wrong? From one side, there are no proof of god existence. A "holy book" which could be easily be written by men, and it probably is considering how its full of bullshit scientific explanation of ancient age, is NO proof. 2nd, the existence of a large number of religions along history show the human habit of creating gods. Zeus, allah, krishna ecc. Yet every believers believed his god to be the right one. They cant be ALL right, they CAN be all wrong.
Origami84 6 months ago
@arecuk1
Part 5 What else to add? I answered most of your question, but i dont expect you to actually counter them on a scientific way. Faith means believing even without evidence-that is in fact the very core of all religions. You parents, priests, imams, monks tell you the god X esist and you believe them. Some of us, the atheist, dont just believe tough. We know better that to trust the 1st idiot who open his mouth, especially on somthing SO important. We are sceptic of "revealed truths" END
Origami84 6 months ago
@Origami84 You offer the typical atheist garbage for answers. That is, no answers just accusations at people of faith with nothing to back it up. When do you egotists begin answering questions? You say evolution has been proven. When? Where? How? It's as though you all go to the same class for trying to debate the issue of faith and learn, "Just accuse them, ask them question and verbally slash them open before they get a chance to ask you any questions. That way, we win." Idiots!!!
metanoeo1 5 months ago
@metanoeo1
You have internet at your disposal: USE IT. Starts with the evolution entry in wikipedia. Visit websites of natural history, then visits some museum in your country. Look for the informations, read them, understand them. Learn HOW darwin came up with his theory, his famous voyage. Learn of the recently discovered fused chromosome in our dna that show how we have a common ancestors with apes. Unlike religion evolution is not based only on some obscure and scientifically wrong holy book
Origami84 5 months ago
@Origami84 I've done those things in the past and found enormous gaps of necessary information in the theory. Again - you dodge the question by trying to appear intellectually superior and cast dispersion on "scientifically wrong holy" books without any evidence for your accusations. Typical egostistical atheist. Explain how the fusion produced more DNA than the chimps? Fusion would likely destroy some of the DNA not produce 150,000 more base pairs of DNA. Next question?
metanoeo1 5 months ago
@metanoeo1
Gaps are not mistakes, neither contradictory evidence. Since we are dealing with a long and complex process some detail may be obscure but the overall picture is clear. If you are not a bible nuts, of course. As for your question, im no dna expert so i'll lead you to the "Chimpanzee genome project" entry in wikipedia. But let ME make a question now-which theory do YOU support? The "creation by god"? Are you severe on the evolution one, but ready to accept any unproved bible bullshit?
Origami84 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@metanoeo1
Gaps are not mistakes, neither contradictory evidence. Since we are dealing with a long and complex process some detail may be obscure but the overall picture is clear. If you are not a bible nuts, of course. As for your question, im no dna expert so i'll lead you to the "Chimpanzee genome project" entry in wikipedia. But let ME make a question now-which theory do YOU support? The "creation by god"? Are you severe on the evolution one, but ready to accept any unproved bible bullshit?
Origami84 5 months ago
Ultra lolz2k!
ideologger 6 months ago
Go with the Sauce; May the Sauce be with you...R'amen
Jbear9 6 months ago 3
There is no Monster but the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Bobby is themessenger of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. RAmen.
GGGNVideos 6 months ago
hilarious!!!
ramanian 6 months ago
Blasphemer! May you be punished by the Great Spaghetti Monster!
GodOfUnbelief 6 months ago
@GodOfUnbelief theres no evidence that the greath spaghetti monster punishes, my personal belief is that it will only bring you spagethi after death :x
FusionNinjin 6 months ago
Noodling hilarious!!
eleonb 6 months ago
We all live in the Noodly Matrix. Neo, The One, must get to the sauce!!!
MrLiamHenderson 7 months ago 2
Some idiot tried to tell me evolution was real the other day. But there is no earthly explanation for how pasta can end up looking so perfectly twirly.
DanGRtheMan 7 months ago 21
HA! take that Dawkins, question my faith will ya?
MyNameIsBob212 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago