|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 14, 2015 16:01:37 GMT 5
^Pastafarians claim themselves to adhere to a genuine religion, yet it is generally agreed that they are a parody religion founded and followed by a bunch of atheists.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 14, 2015 17:24:33 GMT 5
A parody of a religion is not necessary a religion. I mean, if we want to call something a religion, we should assume that people actually believe in what they worship.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 14, 2015 18:34:47 GMT 5
The whole point of the parody was to question that.
If someone claims to believe in a floating, invisible, sentient bunch of spaghetti and meatballs, how do we determine that they actually don’t? I mean, obviously I don’t think they do, because I think I understand what their purpose is, but given that we didn’t have this information? Just "it sounds ridiculous" isn’t a good argument, since actual belief in most genuine religions seems just as ridiculous when looked at objectively (it is objectively just as unlikely that the universe was created by some form of all-mighty humanoid being as it is that it was created by a spaghetti monster).
Anyway, that’s what I’d call an "atheist religion", a so-called religion that was actually invented by atheists to make a point. Obviously I wouldn’t call this an actual religion because I’m sure it is just a parody. But what exactly would you mean by it?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 14, 2015 18:43:12 GMT 5
If we have no further information and assume that they believe in a spaghetti God, they technically don't count as atheists anymore.
What I simply meant is that I think atheistic religions was more about serious religions (like for example Buddhism).
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 14, 2015 19:06:01 GMT 5
Exactly. But since we (probably) all agree that they are, even tough being technically adherent to a religion, I thought that was what you meant. Sorry, got you wrong on that.
Thanks, I get what you mean in this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 5, 2015 14:01:50 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 5, 2015 19:29:28 GMT 5
lol, this image made me laugh:  It’s remarkable what BS they believe us to know. Whales evolving before the first birds… |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jul 5, 2015 21:02:09 GMT 5
Also interesting how they use the "evolution is not observable" PRATT by asking for evidence that is so specific that it can't be given (an example would be seeing a reptile turn into a bird right in front of their eyes to believe in evolution) while they laugh at atheists who need to see God right in front of them to believe in him.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 15, 2016 22:19:57 GMT 5
RE: Evolution is a religion, apparently, the creationist definition of religion is "A belief system without evidence" (and evolution allegedly fits this definition criteria): creationwiki.org/Evolution_is_a_religion_(Talk.Origins)Looks like I have some food for the Index to Creationist Claims. |
|
