The Instigator
GodSands
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
Ragaxus
Con (against)
Winning
68 Points

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a church full of copy cats, bounsing ideas off each other.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 14 votes the winner is...
Ragaxus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,132 times Debate No: 6790
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (54)
Votes (14)

 

GodSands

Pro

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a church full of copy cats where it is a cool thing or a new trend. It clear that they do not believe in the the FSM but only use it to comfort them from the truth.

I have to be careful talking about this though, God will lead me through this. You people who are pretenders in you faith are exstordernaily people. You give commitment into a faith you know is wrong based and off the Christian faith which you know is right. All you are doing to tranclating God into the FSM, I could think of God as anything. All it is, is a mockery of God's image, ofcourse we do not know what God looks like, so it is quite likey that a atheist would come up with the FSM. All the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster proofs is how stupid people are for following that image of God. God is not made out of the imagaination of men but men are made out of the imagination of God. You people are so delusional. Those who follow.

A bunch of copy cats, it is a sneaky way that you think you can ease pass people from knowing you know the truth is right. By making your faith seem dumb. You who ever follows this is a copy cat.

It is like you are confessing in silence, locked in your bed room whispering the truth to your self but covering it up by the image of the FSM.

Thank you. This debate was always going to be short.
Ragaxus

Con

The line between parody and plagiarism, while fine, has begun to obfuscate your view of the goodly Church of the FSM and its tenets. FSMism was never meant to be a standalone (read: true) belief system; rather, it was started simply to illustrate to the directors of various state school boards, including that of Kansas, that the idea of teaching intelligent design in a high school curriculum is patently ridiculous. (While a well-worn debate, its finer points don't belong in this round.) Because its conception was brought about as a response to religious activists--those who advocated ID education--FSMism has begun to adopt elements from the very source of its creation, Christianity. This includes most of its details and subculture.

A comparison between parody and plagiarism is in order. To begin, I'll define both of these terms (using Princeton WordNET--thanks, Google):

Plagiarism--a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work

Parody--a composition that imitates or misrepresents somebody's style, usually in a humorous way

The main difference between these two concepts is the amount of deviation from the original. In plagiarism, there is none. In parody, though, there's a fair amount of difference from the original for the purposes of humor.

I offer as evidence a few of the iconic images of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, with their traditional counterpart below:

1. http://www.venganza.org...
1a. http://www.jillstanek.com...

2. http://www.venganza.org...
2a. http://z.about.com...

3. http://www.venganza.org...
3a. http://www.quantumyoga.org...

The deviation from the original in all of these pictures is obvious. Where Jesus or some other icon of the Christian faith once stood, the artists have replaced the visage of FSM simply as an attempt at humor.

Thus, the resolution as GodSands has worded it is false--FSMers aren't copycats anymore than MAD Magazine has committed intellectual theft from Highlights with the creation of Melvin and Jenkins as a counterpoint to Goofus and Gallant. They've simply taken the trappings of their foil, Christianity, and lampooned them.

Note that further attacks on FSM's inherent untruth and further contentions of Christianity's truth are non-topical (and thus inadmissable). This resolution speaks of FSM's theft from other sources and "idea-bouncing", not whether anything it says is true.

The further wording of "bouncing ideas off of each other" is also significant--this seems to imply that the people aligned with the Church of the FSM collaborate on ideas. This is also known as "education", and it's an integral part of the human condition. Asking the negative to refute this is akin to asking him to disproving the effect of the human condition on humans themselves--limiting his ground in the broadest sense of the phrase. As a burden, I ask my opponent to justify this idea as applying to the Church of the FSM in a way it doesn't for anyone else.

In conclusion--it's just a joke, GodSands. Praying for it may defeat the purpose.
Debate Round No. 1
GodSands

Pro

I asure you that you would not find a joke cracking Christian who laughs at most light hearted thing. Laugh at that artists picture.

Imagen:
A Christian is laughing at a collection of funny and amusing picture and quotaions. He turns the page over once again, laughing and to find that FSM picture. Would he keep laughing? So there is a message behind this. Which is not funny.

Its like you laugh you way to the truth. So when you realise endorins you feel happy in what you are doing. It is probably the only way to make you relise the truth but in a stupid and childish fashion. I say to that "Man up!" Take the truth face to face and stop creating your own world of lies and false hood.

You just explian the origin of the Church of the FSM. I do not care where it came from. I just want to know why and its real purpose is. Beyond that 2 second laugh you inherit from the picture. If it was just for that then why is it a religion.

You are not taking this seriously but acting on it like a joke. You are trying to confort me by explaination of the FSM. And talking about it's detail spin offs. I want the real reason of it. And I think you need to respond to by previous argumant.

I know that people think its a joke but with out them knowing they are believeing in God. In a mocking fastion. Mockery of God will not grant you heaven and the devil has used the FSM to fool people that this belief is ok and acceptable. You are losing out. The devil gets at people in so many ways. Read my debate called: The very fact that God exists is denied by the devil says through men, is true.

You would be a dar if you did that. Do your self a favour and step back and picture my points.
Ragaxus

Con

My 1NR: Now with Signposting!

Point 1: Humor is Subjective.
Our hypothetical Christian is flipping through some hard-copy collection of images--maybe he printed out a Google image search?--and sees the famous picture of Adam being touched by His Noodly Appendage. He abruptly stops laughing. This challenges everything he believes in, and much less, it's not funny. It's not funny at all.

All of a sudden, his hypothetical Christian friend comes into the room and sees the picture--and bursts into hysterics!

"How can you laugh at this picture?" HC#1 asks. "It's just insulting to me."

"Come on, man," says HC#2. "Different people find humor in different things. Just because this picture doesn't take what I believe seriously doesn't mean it's not funny. There's probably a scientific study out there on why people find things humorous, but in any event, common knowledge dictates that what I find funny, you might not. You know those two girls in our history class?"

"Which? The ones on the far left of the room who crack up at the orange-typewriter joke that no one else gets?"

"Yeah! No one else finds that funny. They do!"

"But that joke doesn't challenge the core of what they believe in, does it?"

"No, but just because someone's making fun of what I believe in doesn't mean I'll automatically get offended. And even if I did, it's important to consider this on a global scale if we think utilitarianistically--which we have to, we're Christian, and the Judeo-Christian ethic is pretty much synonymous with Utilitarianism by now. Christians aren't in the majority of the world, just a large part of it (http://www.adherents.com...), and they're the only ones who'd be offended at this picture. If we assume the same proportions hold, and 70% of the people who see this picture won't be offended by it, this picture has a net positive outcome!"

HC#2 takes the stack from HC#1.

"Oh, hey," he says, "here's that picture that shows that athiests are the scourge of the devil. I'm showing this to Ragaxus--he'll get a kick out of it."

Point 2: FSMism is Not a Religion, nor is it the Truth--and Knows It

The reason I bring up the origins of FSM is to illustrate the motive you ask for. This is not a belief system. People do not live their lives according to its "sacred" tenets. It is simply a particularly long-winded joke that doesn't even TRY to reach the truth, laughing toward it or otherwise. Again, it's not the truth of the system we're arguing about--it's whether it's a "copy-cat".

"Mockery of God will not grant you heaven and the devil has used the FSM to fool people that this belief is ok and acceptable. You are losing out. The devil gets at people in so many ways."

I'd like to say two things here--
1. There are plenty of people who don't believe there's a heaven, or even a God, in the first place. They've denied the Holy Spirit, which is the one thing he won't forgive. So they're damned anyway--Mark 3:29: "Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will NEVER be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." (emphasis mine.) So why knock other people's fun while they still have the opportunity to be happy?

2. Can you prove that it was the Devil working in this instance? Can you prove he's not working through the church itself, fostering intolerance and ignorance, leader believers to Hell with their own feet? You are human, and thus cannot see the influence of Lucifer. Don't presume it anywhere.

So--you say to me, "Man up." I say unto you, "Lighten up."
Debate Round No. 2
GodSands

Pro

"So--you say to me, "Man up." I say unto you, "Lighten up." -- Sooooowa...shall I just work off this then? I think I might. The other information you gave me is meaningless. Like a joke is.

I would not ponder over a joke like this you baboon. (Joke) If it was meaningless.

You think it is a joke because you do not understand the Bible and therefore do not enjoy or take seriously anything it says. Name me one thing that that you do not understand but really enjoy?

If you understood the Bible you would not find the FSM fun but just a delusion. Look read my other debate which I have mentioned in my previous argument.

All the artist has done is placed that silly picture in frong of God. Great now you are surely delusional. I know God does not look like the original picture of God did but it shows respect. Unlike the FSM. Which mocks God. You still take God as a joke anyway so why do you need the FSM? You pay more attention to that than God. So the FSM is a way that you can get fermiliar with the faith. Like a taster. But a billion times worse than the real thing. If you are even 1 times worse than perfect you will no be granted into heaven.

You mock God for what reason. If you were true to your self you would not mock what others believe in. But remain your self. If you take life seriously you would not mock hope. You do not take life seriously, because you do not understand.

This is short not because I am being slughtered by his argument, but because he does not get my point. I understand it menat for a joke but it is not funny. In stead serious.
Ragaxus

Con

Whoa--sorry I took so long; my friend needed help on physics. Let's wrap this puppy up, shall we?

First, I'd like to talk about a rhetorical technique/fallacy: ad hominem, or translated from Latin, "attack the man." It's a ploy wherein a debater attacks his opponent's moral character or beliefs, rather than the substance of his argumentation. It's fallacious, because a person's morality has nothing to do with whether what he's saying is true or not. In order to effectively disprove a point, a speaker must demonstrate why the argument a person made is logically flawed.

GodSands, unfortunately, committed this fallacy when he stated, "You mock God for what reason? If you were true to yourself, you would not mock what others believe in. But remain yourself. If you took life seriously you would not mock hope. You do not take life seriously, because you do not understand." (Edited somewhat for punctuation) By accusing me of lying to myself, he attempted to weaken my argumentation. Sadly, it's bad logic.

Furthermore, my opponent has committed the cardinal sin of debate: ignoring the resolution. As I've taken pains to reiterate, this resolution is about the plagiaristic tendencies of FSM, not their moral character, their veracity, or their worth as ANYTHING--even a joke. FSM might very well be a meaningless, evil delusion as you claim, but it's not important. In debate, what matters is the resolution. When we stop arguing about that, we lose all common ground, and the round degenerates into meaningless slop. Therefore, topicality will be my primary voting issue of today's debate.

While secondary in nature, the next voting issue of the round is the nature of humor. My opponent tells me that, if I understood the Bible, I wouldn't find the Church funny. However, many of my friends who are devoted Christians find attacks on their faith of the same caliber funny, and in turn, I find the same kind of attack on my beliefs funny as well. Some people, such as my opponent, don't respond favorably to belief attacks--but there are those who do, and it is for them that the Church was created. There's naysayers of every truly funny subject, after all; good humor is challenging. GodSands may never find FSM funny, and it's his right not to. For the rest of us, though, the Church is a brilliant work of parody.

In waxing righteously furious on the character of the Church of the FSM, making unwarranted attack after another, and questioning my mental stability, GodSands forgot his original gripe with the Church--plagiarism. For the sake of the format of debate, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
54 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by jason_hendirx 8 years ago
jason_hendirx
debate.org's ip address is insultGodsands.com. Just ping it.
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
maya9, this is debate.org....not insulteverybody.com...
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
"They're not copy cats. Christianity copied Judaism. Islam copied Christianity with a different prophet and a different theme than Christianity." -- Jews are Jews and we Christians have accepted Christ for who ever does that will be saved. If that would be Muslim, Buddhism, Atheist, Hindu, Mormon, Pagain, Chinese Traditional, African Traditional and African Diasporic, primal-indigenous, Sikhism, Juche, Spiritism, Judaism, Babi and Baha'i faiths, Jainism, Shinto, Cao Dai, Zoroastrianism, Tenrikyo, Neo-Paganism, Unitarian-Universalism, Rastafarian, Scientology and even Satainism. And any more if that is any cult like witch craft and one practices black or white magic. Who ever practices wicca or voodoo and more. These people who follow such false lies can be saved if they turn to Christ. Check out my new debate, "The hypothesis of Chritianity and Satanism is clear. Atheists are just in between." Satan hides and so does the religion, do not be fooled. Even the twint towers in New York was because of Satanists, and when cows are taken from feilds in America and disected, killed and dumbed back on the feild is by Satanists. Weird and strange happenings like ghost and aliens are by Satanists, anit gravity, when people say they have been induction by strange creatures is by Satanists because all of this is evil. In that Satanists hide. In the darkeness where the light cannot penitrate.

What makes Jewdism is because Christ is here to save us, Christians are Jews acceptng Christ.
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
If this site is going to have Pastafarian as a religion choice it should have IPU too.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
If you don't see anything wrong with his senseless, insulting proselytizing, you are just as much of a blemish on this site as he is.

Note that the name of this site is "debate.org", not "preaching.com". By ignoring the intended purpose of this site (to host logical debates) and using it as a means to get off on other people's attention, he insults everyone who comes here to engage in debate. Of course, I see how you might have trouble with that, seeing as you have no more interest in logic than he does.
Posted by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
why do you want him gone? i dont see anything wrong with him....you should be the one gone..
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
The people who are encouraging him are the ones debating him. If everyone would just refuse to accept his debates and block him from accepting their's, he would be gone within a week.
Posted by bobby123 8 years ago
bobby123
apparently you are encouraging his behavior too maya9.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
Why do people continue to engage GodSands? I IMPLORE you all, do not engage him. You only encourage his behavior.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
They're not copy cats. Christianity copied Judaism. Islam copied Christianity with a different prophet and a different theme than Christianity.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RacH3ll3 8 years ago
RacH3ll3
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by heckler 8 years ago
heckler
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Patrick_Henry 8 years ago
Patrick_Henry
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 8 years ago
Its-you-or-me
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by felipmartin 8 years ago
felipmartin
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by bobby123 8 years ago
bobby123
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
GodSandsRagaxusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07