Symbols, symbolism, and proof

Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

I will gladly prove that to you, if you will first prove to me that the God of the Bible is not the One and True Living God. (I'll drop the Darwinpanzee image, if you drop the offensive and blasphemous 97% chimp image...)

Armon Ayers wrote:

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

I will gladly prove that to you, if you will first prove to me that the God of the Bible is not the One and True Living God. (I'll drop the Darwinpanzee image, if you drop the offensive and blasphemous 97% chimp image...)

Oh, nice try. Too bad I offered first.

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

I will gladly prove that to you, if you will first prove to me that the God of the Bible is not the One and True Living God. (I'll drop the Darwinpanzee image, if you drop the offensive and blasphemous 97% chimp image...)

Oh, nice try. Too bad I offered first.

Well, my offer stands. Proving that the God of the Bible is not the One and True Living God shouldn't be too hard for a theological giant like yourself. So, if you want my proof just answer me: put up or shut up.

Can't we all just get along and debate the political issues of our time?

We all know it takes faith to be a believer.

And even faith itself is a gift of God.

So if one has Faith and the other does not it is not indicative that the one is righteous and the other is not.

sodbuster wrote:Can't we all just get along and debate the political issues of our time?

We all know it takes faith to be a believer.

And even faith itself is a gift of God.

So if one has Faith and the other does not it is not indicative that the one is righteous and the other is not.

Thank you, godbuster.

Why would we debate political issues on the religion threads?

We should not.

I could just tell this was going nowhere so I tried to be a peacemaker and invite everyone over to the political forum.

So anyway I will butt out now and you won't have sherm to kick around any more.

On this forum.

sodbuster wrote:We should not.

I could just tell this was going nowhere so I tried to be a peacemaker and invite everyone over to the political forum.

So anyway I will butt out now and you won't have sherm to kick around any more.

On this forum.

Is there anything that I can do to get you to leave the National Politics Forum and stay on the Religion Forum--for the spirit of cooperation's sake? Just do it for America's sake!

Why would we debate political issues on the religion threads?

With people trying to legislate their beliefs (banning gay marriage, faith-based federal funds, teaching creationism in science class), how do you separate the two?

I think you both need to delete your images and as you placed yours there first BMD and Terry's was in response to yours AND you referenced a request for comment on netiquette you should delete yours first.

I guess we'll find out if you want to debate and discuss and remain civil or dissent and be disruptive and remain a jerk.

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

Of course not, in any empirical sense. I will say that the Pink Unicorns and the FSM do not fill well to answer questions of origin and purpose, but if you think that you want your leap of faith to be in that direction, well and good. Of course, neither offers any kind of hope to speak of, but reality is not dependent on how good the story is.

The issue is one, sure, of blasphemy, but do as you wish. I believe the 1st amendment protections on free exercise are for everyone. I believe that God will judge such actions, but I will not and have no desire to. You will notice that I do not put out gratuitously insulting images of atheism. As far as such images go, you are guilty of being uncharitable and unkind, but such is no crime.

SheikBen wrote:

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

Of course not, in any empirical sense. I will say that the Pink Unicorns and the FSM do not fill well to answer questions of origin and purpose, but if you think that you want your leap of faith to be in that direction, well and good. Of course, neither offers any kind of hope to speak of, but reality is not dependent on how good the story is.[emphasis added]

That's right! (There may be hope yet!) Reality, scientific reality, is dependent upon empirical data. No matter how good the story, or how good it makes one feel, if it does not agree with empirical data, it has no scientific support. By that criterion, the FSM, Invisible Pink Unicorns, and ANY AND ALL deities are equally valid. That is to say, they have no scientific validity at all.

SheikBen wrote:The issue is one, sure, of blasphemy...

One man's truth is another's blasphemy. Just as one man's religion is another's superstition.

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

Still waiting.

bmd wrote:

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

Still waiting.

I have offered to prove that the PU and FSM are less real. In fact, I have reams of information to prove that fact. I will reveal this all to you, if you just prove that the God of the Bible is not God. Do you want an answer or not?

bmd wrote:

SheikBen wrote:

bmd wrote:Can anyone PROVE to me that Invisible Pink Unicorns, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster are any less real than ANY deity?

If you can, I will not only delete the images in my signature, I will also put ANY symbol there you deem appropriate.

Of course not, in any empirical sense. I will say that the Pink Unicorns and the FSM do not fill well to answer questions of origin and purpose, but if you think that you want your leap of faith to be in that direction, well and good. Of course, neither offers any kind of hope to speak of, but reality is not dependent on how good the story is.[emphasis added]

That's right! (There may be hope yet!) Reality, scientific reality, is dependent upon empirical data. No matter how good the story, or how good it makes one feel, if it does not agree with empirical data, it has no scientific support. By that criterion, the FSM, Invisible Pink Unicorns, and ANY AND ALL deities are equally valid. That is to say, they have no scientific validity at all.

SheikBen wrote:The issue is one, sure, of blasphemy...

One man's truth is another's blasphemy. Just as one man's religion is another's superstition.

Scientific validity? Eh? Is validity dependent upon validation? If so, then ONCE AGAIN, your materialism is every bit the unscientific viewpoint as mine.

bmd,
Do you believe that Mohammad was also 97% chimp?

Armon Ayers wrote:bmd,
Do you believe that Mohammad was also 97% chimp?

He, and all humans, are equally related to chimps. Got some data to refute that?

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:bmd,
Do you believe that Mohammad was also 97% chimp?

He, and all humans, are equally related to chimps. Got some data to refute that?

Why not post a picture of Mohammad with that same claim? No cojones? (I have my proof all ready. Can't you take the challenge?)

bm,

I think the Christians should answer your question immediately after you answer my question as to why you believe American citizens must obey every law, but illegal immigrants should face no consequences for violating US law and threatening our security and sovereignty.

In addition, I'd like to once again point out just how offensive I find your behavior. Although I am agnostic, most of the members of this forum are not Christian and you have chosen to go out of your way to antagonize them. It's juvenile.

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:bmd,
Do you believe that Mohammad was also 97% chimp?

He, and all humans, are equally related to chimps. Got some data to refute that?

Actually, come to think of it, since Jesus lived before Mohammed, who lived before you and I, the slight amount of divergence that has occurred during the intervening time span would make Jesus slightly more closely related to chimps than Mohammed, and both of them slightly more related to chimps than are folk living today.

Armon Ayers wrote:

bmd wrote:

Armon Ayers wrote:bmd,
Do you believe that Mohammad was also 97% chimp?

He, and all humans, are equally related to chimps. Got some data to refute that?

Why not post a picture of Mohammad with that same claim? No cojones? (I have my proof all ready. Can't you take the challenge?)

I've never seen such a pic. Got one?

Stephanie wrote:bm,

I think the Christians should answer your question immediately after you answer my question as to why you believe American citizens must obey every law, but illegal immigrants should face no consequences for violating US law and threatening our security and sovereignty.

I never said that they shouldn't. I merely said that I don't get all worked up over illegal immigration. Then again, I don't get all worked up over people going a few miles over the speed limit on the freeway, either.

Stephanie wrote:In addition, I'd like to once again point out just how offensive I find your behavior. Although I am agnostic, most of the members of this forum are not Christian and you have chosen to go out of your way to antagonize them. It's juvenile.

Would a Star of David also be so? How about a Crescent Mood and Star? Would a Buddha be just as offensive? What about the Tri-bar Cross of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Or, is it that you dispute that Jesus was human? Or, that humans share 96+% genetic identity with chimps?

Tell me, Stephanie, just what is so offensive about my posts? Could it be that they are just a bit too close to reality for your tastes?

You're not using a religious symbol or icon. You're bastardizing something those people consider sacred. You have no respect and lack common courtesy.

That said, just like the government can't make you a better person, neither can I. You are who and what you are.

The problem I have with it Stephanie is that it violates rules he posted when he was crying over being called William.

He's shown that he's a true hypocrite. That's not opinion, that is fact proven by him.