The Instigator
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
3 Points
The Contender
Skynet
Pro (for)
Tied
3 Points

Can Christians disprove Pastafarianism?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,940 times Debate No: 19952
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)

 

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Pastafarians will tell you that the holy book "Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" is very specific about the origins of the universe and life.

On the first day, the FSM separated the water from the heavens. On the second, he made the land along with a beer volcano. Satisfied with his creation, the FSM drank too much beer from the volcano and got hungover. Between wasted nights and clumsy afternoons, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created water and pand (for a second time, accidentally, because he forgot that he created it the day before) along with The Great Pasta Bowl (which will be explained later) and a midget, which he named Man. Man and an equally short woman lived happily in the Olive Garden of Eden for some time until the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused a global flood in a accident while cooking.

Pirates are the most divine of his creations. The reason for climate change is a direct result of the decline in pirates from the 1800's. Proof? Somalia has the most pirates and has the lowest carbon emissions.

There are two forms of the afterlife. The Great Pasta Bowl for those who accept him, which contains beer volcanoes and stripper factories. For those who reject his noodliness, an place called The Underground Freezer of Doom awaits them. In this place you get freezer burned for all of eternity, there are still beer volcanoes and stripper factories only the beer is stale and the strippers have sexually transmitted diseases.

"Arrrr. To be a good follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ye should drink much meade and surround yerself with as many buxom wenches as possible."
~ Mosey on Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

"In the Name of the Pasta, and of the Sauce, and of the Holy Meatballs..."
~ Ishmali Camuwundra on FSMism

Christians often ask non believers to disprove God and Christianity, well just for fun, can Christians disprove The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism?
Skynet

Pro

"It is a joke religion, I used it to prove a point...You don't really pick up on things to quick do you Einstein?"

http://www.debate.org...

My opponent admits this religion is a joke on this very site.

Pastaarianism was famously created by Bobby Henderson in order to poke fun at ID at a 2005 school board debate where the contentiuous issue of whether the students should be exposed to alternative ideas to evolution would be allowed.
Mr. Henderson clearly states on his website that "I would just make the point that satire is an honest, legitimate basis for religion."

Taking into consideration the sudden revelation of Pastafarianism at a debate about ID, Pastafarianism's mirroring and distorting of Christian ideas in relation to ID, and obvious substitution of Christian doctrines with contemporary comedic elements included in doctrine about FSM, (pirates, beer, midgets, references to global warming, (noun)-of Doom, Strippers, (ironic word)-factorys, and STDs), I would say it is safe to say if you don't realize that this is a satire religion with no more basis in reality that Mr. Henderson believes Christianity has, I would find it safe to say, "You really don't pickup on things to quick do you Einstein?"
Debate Round No. 1
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Well my opponent has failed miserably at his task. Christianity is just as much of a joke as Pastafarianism (which is the whole point of Pastafarianism). You see regardless of whether it's satire or not, your task is to disprove it. Can you disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists? Just because you mention that it's satire doesn't disprove it. I can make a joke about a bunny rabbit in my backyard, just because I admitted it was a joke doesn't mean that it disproves a bunny in my back yard. The whole point of this is to prove a point (my opponent is just helping me make it). Christians say that because Atheists can't disprove God, then God exists. Well Christians can't disprove the FSM (as my opponent has proved). So the question remains, regardless of satire, can you disprove that the FSM didn't create the universe? I'll be waiting...
Skynet

Pro

I cannot disprove the flying spaghetti monster with 100% certainty. As you point out, saying something is true because it cannot be disproven with 100% certainty is illogical. All I can do is show that it is very reasonably false. However, the entire reason you set up this debate is to show that a Christian cannot do what is assumed to be logically impossible.
And the entire reason you ask a Christian to do so in this debate is because you have a straw man in your head of Christians, that because some Christians have made the argument that because atheists cannot disprove God, it must be a central pillar of all Christianity.

The real point of this debate is to prove that Christians are illogical, and you provided no caveat, such as most, or some, implying all Christians.

"Christians often ask non believers to disprove God and Christianity, well just for fun, can Christians disprove The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism?"

I believe I have shown the readers that I, a Christian, am logical. However, the question remains in everyone's mind, why did I accept this debate?

It was 3 am and I was angry at you for calling a 14 year old names in the comments.

My opponent is making an assumed logically impossible argument based on a straw man perception of me. His core argument that all Christians are illogical is shown illegitimate. I urge a Pro vote for at least conduct.
Debate Round No. 2
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

"The real point of this debate is to prove that Christians are illogical"

How Pastafariansism sound to Christians (silly, outrages ect.), is pretty much how Christianity sounds to atheists. This is the point of the debate, to see if a Christian can disprove the FSM any better than someone can disprove the Christian God. Christianity and Pastafarianism is all based on the same thing, a book. So the answer has to be no.

Where does the concept of Heaven and Hell come from? A book. (Mark: 9, Matthew: 13, Revelation : 14 to be exact)
Where do the concept of the Great Pasta Bowl and the Underground Freezer of Doom? A book.

This is the point.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster has just as much evidence to back it up as the God of Abraham.

"It was 3 am and I was angry at you for calling a 14 year old names in the comments."

First off, I called him Einstein it wasn't like I was cursing him out. Secondly, I don't click on everyone's page I talk to and look at their age (have fun with that). Thirdly, when I was 14 I was getting hand jobs and drinking Budweiser, I'm sure he can handle his own.

"His core argument that all Christians are illogical is shown illegitimate. I urge a Pro vote for at least conduct."

Actually that wasn't my core argument in the slightest, but if that's a point that needs to be proven then you continue to fill that gap my friend. Also begging for votes doesn't really help your conduct here either.

Now, Chrisitians will say Pastafarianism is just a spoof of Christianity due to the similarities. So in contrast, it's safe to say that Christianity is a just a spoof on Pagan religions. How?

Examples:

.Christians and most Pagans celebrated the birthday of their Dod/ man on December 25th
.According to an ancient Christian tradition, Christ died on March 23rd and resurrected on March 25th . These dates agree precisely with the death and resurrection of Attis.

Also, being born of a virgin is actually an old thing (older that Christianity) that people used to shove in mythology.

Re-Cap

1) My opponent hasn't even attempted to disprove Pastafarianism
2) Christianity and Pastafarianism come from the same source, a book. Therefore, they have the same amount of evidence backing them up.
3) How silly Pastafarianism sounds to Christians, is how silly Christianity sounds to Atheists.
4) If Pastafarinism is just a spoof of Christianity because of the similarities with Christianity, then Christianity is just a spoof of Paganism because of the similarities with Pagan religions.
Skynet

Pro

I have already pointed out the comedic elements in Pastafarianism, and Mr. Henderson's admission that it is satire, and we can conclude that since it was introduced as satire during a debate about the legitimacy of Creationism in the public education system, that it is a satire of theistic creationist's belief. Satire is not used to introduce a new truth, but to point out the silliness of an existing truth. If the new found truth of Pastafarianism, as Mr. Henderson claims, may have legitamacy as a true religion yet be based on satire, it is a claim of a new truth introduced in a fashion never used to introduce new truths, but only to exaggerate and poke fun at old truths. This was not a satire of itself, but a satire of an existing truth, that is, the existance of empiracally unprovable religious belief.

Belief in ID exists.

Belief comes into conflict with unbelief/different belief.

A satire is created and introduced during the conflict.

The satire is then to be taken by believers in ID as just as true as thier religion, which is not heavy with comedic elements, and was clearly not established as parody, as the satire is? If any elements of it are new truths, they will be indistinguishable from the exaggerations it makes of Christianity, and cannot be taken seriously, as they cannot be clearly determined. And common sense tells us no one introduces a new truth through parody. Pastafarianism is parody, and therefore cannot be accepted as a true religion, but a mockery of an existing one.

BUT

Demanding an atheist disprove God is not a route I would take to attempt to prove God, as you say I would. Your assumption that that is a main doctrinal point of Christianity is what's at fault. And that's the whole reason you're asking me to prove a negative, because "that's what Christians do to Atheists." I point to the illegitamacy of your reason for asking the question to negate the validity of your question. But it was a fun brain exercise to try.

Furthermore, you veer off into a rant of how I am doing nothing to prove the legitamacy of Christianity, which is irrelevant in this debate. If you want to have that debate, go start it, but not here.


http://www.venganza.org...
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
Ahw..it was Wiploc. Man, that guy is a vote-ninja. Hits you when you least expect it.
Posted by Neonix 5 years ago
Neonix
Terrible debate by rational. No sources, self-destructive arguments, poor conduct, poor grammar...it's an endless failure. How is this a tie? He could have debated a brick and lost.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
@rational
*flip off*

my IQ is extremely high btw. Sarcasm doesn't go over well on the internet.
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
Skynet
He's 14, lay off him.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 5 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
It is a joke religion, I used it to prove a point...You don't really pick up on things to quick do you Einstein?
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
wow people actually believe that I thought it was a joke religion.
Posted by M.Torres 5 years ago
M.Torres
What exactly are you expecting here for this debate? Your stance would be "Christians cannot disprove Pastafarianism?"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Rational_Thinker9119SkynetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: it's a joke religion, pro proved that and con said it himself in the comments. Jokes fail. Arguments to pro, I will re-evaluate later.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Rational_Thinker9119SkynetTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's only relevant argument is that Pastawhatever is a joke. Con pointed out that some jokes are true, that Pro didn't prove Pastawhaterver to be false. Pro talked about insulting 14 year olds, had no relevant comeback. Victory: Con.