i have to make this short since this being done on my phone. i have long held the belief that every religions higher power is the same. also there are some religious experts who support my theory. if you look at the teachings of all the religions the message is the same. be a good person do good things have faith in your religion and everything will work out. in my mind its god speaking to people in a way they understand best. i will go into further when we have interwebs but as of now im afraid of losing all of this.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby i have to make this short since this being done on my phone. i have long held the belief that every religions higher power is the same. also there are some religious experts who support my theory. if you look at the teachings of all the religions the message is the same. be a good person do good things have faith in your religion and everything will work out. in my mind its god speaking to people in a way they understand best. i will go into further when we have interwebs but as of now im afraid of losing all of this.

If that were true, He is obviously a completely incompetent project manager and has made a huge mess of things.

Posted by MonkeyPunchBaby be a good person do good things have faith in your religion and everything will work out. in my mind its god speaking to people in a way they understand best.

What your pointing out is cultural though. For instance having many wives might be promoted in one religion but blasphemy in another. Food dogma would be another example.

Good and bad are culturally relative.

Posted by tekriter Exactly. I think this is why you need to define the question first. There are an infinite number of possible personal, esoteric definitions, but I think the question is best served by the "standard model". I don't think minor points about jesus being a prophet or not would affect the outcome.

The model I would put forth in this debate would be this:

1) A universal omnipotent power, as yet undetermined by measurements.

2) The ability of all humans to somehow influence this power and that all humans are influenced by it.

3) That culture and symbols be taken out of the debate except when used as comparisons.

4) That all humans can access this power without advanced technology.



I might find it necessary to add other points to the model and so too might others.

Point 1 is worded as such so that it would exclude current scientific understandings of the universe that have been totally worked out. God is not newton's gravity for the purposes of this debate.

Point 2 is necessary because there would be no point in debate if the power existed but it could do nothing to effect your life. Likewise, even if it had complete control over your life it would be pointless to debate it unless you could somehow influence it in return.

Example: do this and be punished eternally OR do that and the rain comes.

It also would seem counter intuitive to the first point of it being a universal power if only certain people could access it. This may be true, but so as to not muck up the other points all people must be able to access it.

This point does allow for "magic".


Point 3 is necessary so we're not after nitpicky details or trying to disprove the gods of Mount Olympus exist as bearded dudes in Greece or that there are actually dragons in Mount Fuji. That would be too easy.

Point 4 is necessary because if god is some partially described function of quantum mechanics, humans would need to have been able to access it since we were living in caves and didn't have particle accelerators in order to establish religions.

Posted by tekriter +1 for that. The link above points to some fools website that attempts to misrepresent the entire genre of secular intellectual writing as arguments for the non-existence of god. Strawman fallacy. Fail. Most people claiming to be atheists would never attempt to make such an argument for the following reasons: 1) It is impossible to prove a negative. This is also true for the infinite number of other imaginary concepts that also cannot be proved to not exist. 2) It is far easier and more intellectually honest to simply point out that there is NO good reason to believe in the existence of: god/jesus/miracles/wmds in iraq/santa/toothfairy/giant spaghetti monster/zuess/appolo/ra/ ad infinitum. But if you want to have a debate, first define god.

That's FLYING Spagetti Monster you apostate bastard!

my bad.


Does the FSM advocate smiting? Is there pennance?

Posted by tekriter my bad. Is there pennance?

You buy the first round of rum on Talk Like A Pirate Day and we shall put this whole unseemly incident behind us.

(NOTICE- This settlement is not endorsed by The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and is only being offered because I like rum.)