The Instigator
kman100
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SeventhProfessor
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then abrahamic religions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
SeventhProfessor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,212 times Debate No: 71332
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)

 

kman100

Pro

First round is for acceptance, and defining terms.

Definitions:

Pastafarianism: the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Good: comparative goodness or badness, which can be measured in morality, plausibility, rationality, et cetera
Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, an Islam

Please support your arguments with evidence and reasoning.
BoP is shared.
First round is acceptance only.
SeventhProfessor

Con

I accept the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
kman100

Pro

Thanks for accepting. I hope that this will be a fun and interesting debate.
I will now lay out my arguments and attempt to prove that Pastafarianism is just as good, or better then the Abrahamic Religions.

Arg. 1
Pastafarianism is just as plausible and realistic as the Abrahamic religions.
To this day, there remains NO empirical evidence for a deity. There is no evidence for the God of the Abrahamic Religions, and there is also no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti monster. This puts both religions on equal footing.
Basically, because of the lack of evidence for both the Abrahamic Religions and Pastafarianism, neither is more plausible or more likely to be true.

Arg 2.
The Pastafarian deity has better morals then the Abrahamic deity, according to religious texts.

The Bible, the Torah, and the Qu'ran portray a god who commands violent and awful things.

In the Torah, stoning is frequently endorsed.
According to the Torah, someone should be stoned for

Lying about their virginity (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21)
Worshiping other gods (Deuteronomy 17: 2-5)
Having sex with someone else while engaged (Deuteronomy 22: 23-24)
Being a rebellious child (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21)

Capital punishment is also recommended for
Being Homosexual (Leviticus 20:13)
Cursing God (Leviticus 24: 10-16)

This shows that the God of the Torah is a God who commands violent things.

In Christianity, the laws of the Torah still apply (this claim is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 5:17, John 7:19, and Matthew 15: 1-7) , so the brutality in the Torah also casts doubt on the Christian God.
Source:
http://biblehub.com...

The Qu'ran also portrays a violent god.

"Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom." 5:33
"As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah." 5:38
"They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper." 4:89
Source:
http://quran.com...

The Pastafarian scriptures don't endorse and barbaric punishments, showing that the Pastafarian religion is much less violent.

Arg. 3
Unlike Pastafarianism, the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions portray a violent god.

In the Torah, some children mock a prophet for being bald, and god promptly kills all the children with bears.
"...young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!"
When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number." (2 Kings 2:23-24)

Additionally, God
-Destroys an entire city just because of the sexuality of its inhabitants (Genesis 19)
-Kills almost every living thing in the world, for unknown reasons (Genesis 6-8)
-Kills every firstborn son in Egypt, (Exodus 11-12)

Christianity tends to accept the teachings of the Old Testament, so the violence in the Old Testament also shows how violent Christianity is.

Taking the Old and New Testament together, the God of the Bible has killed 25 MILLION people
Source: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...

Additionally, God will (apparently) personally kill at least 87 million people (and presumable the rest of the world) in the rapture
Source:http://rationalwiki.org...

The Qu'ran also portrays a violent God.
44% of the chapters in the Qu'ran refer to people being doomed or being sent to hell, where presumably people will be tortured for eternity.
Source: http://godorabsurdity.blogspot.com...

Pastafarianism contains no stories of a violent God. Instead, most fables concern the jolly adventures of the pirate Mosey.
Source: http://flyingspaghettimonster.wikia.com...
SeventhProfessor

Con

"Pastafarianism is just as plausible and realistic as the Abrahamic religions"

Misleading someone causes suffering if they discover they were misled, which means that the less plausible the better for someone, since suffering is good. You are simply dreaming of a world, that is better, which is bad.

"to imagine another, more valuable world is an expression of hatred for a world that makes one suffer... The" philosopher" continues to repeat, "'My kingdom is not of this world'"" This is a longing for another world in which one does not suffer. It is to escape from this world; to create another" false world" This" quest for another world", is the result of unproductive thinking" [1]

Pro has not shown how being realistic is a positive quality, so his point is worthless.

"The Pastafarian deity has better morals then the Abrahamic deity, according to religious texts."

Yes, stonings that increase both the suffering of the stoned people's families, but also aims to increase the suffering of the stoned people by sending them to hell. Frankly, this argument has only helped my case.

"Unlike Pastafarianism, the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions portray a violent god."

A violent God makes humans feel pain and death, all of which directly increase the amount of suffering.

"the God of the Bible has killed 25 MILLION people"

Assuming each of these people had a direct family of four people, this is over 100 MILLION PEOPLE the Bible's God has increased the suffering of. This isn't even including injuries, mind you!

"Additionally, God will (apparently) personally kill at least 87 million people (and presumable the rest of the world) in the rapture"

Excellent.

"where presumably people will be tortured for eternity."

I don't know about you, but I hate being tortured. This would greatly increase my suffering.

"Pastafarianism contains no stories of a violent God. Instead, most fables concern the jolly adventures of the pirate Mosey."

So Pastafarianism directly tries to stop all future elevations of humanity, and resents all that came before [2]? I'll pass.




1. "Nietzsche and the Later Wittgenstein" Journal of Nietzsche Studies 26 p. 55-63
2. http://www.lexido.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kman100

Pro

All of Cons arguments rely on the assertion that suffering is good.

It is not entirely clear, but it seems that Con has found a loophole in my definition of "goodness" that allows her to call anything, including suffering, a measure of goodness.

Good job Con.

My arguments had meaning, evidence, and reasoning. They were legitimate reasons that prove my case. Cons arguments rest solely on a loophole. No one in the real world will assert that suffering is good.

Essentially, Cons case is a weak, purely semantic case with no substance and no relevance. I gave Con arguments with substance and real world application. Con threw back a weak, irrelevant, loophole based case that doesn't actually adress any real issues.
SeventhProfessor

Con

Well if Pro won't continue to argue, I don't have much to say here. He didn't like my argument based on the commonly held philosophy that suffering is good, so he decides to discard it as a "loophole".

So, to recap:

I make an argument based on the Nietzschean view that suffering is beneficial, and Pro tries to declare it a loophole with no reasoning surrounding it.

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
kman100

Pro

The view that suffering is beneficial is NOT a common view, and therefore requires explanation and justification. Since you didn't provide those, it seemed as if you were using a loophole in my definitions.
My measurements of goodness (primarily plausibility and morality) are commonly accepted standards that don't require explanation or justification.

Additionally, the Fredrick Nietzsche view on suffering does not support your case. He primarily believed that suffering was beneficial because people could learn from it. What valuable lesson would innocent people learn from being stoned to death or being drowned by a vengeful god? What is to be learned from following an scientifically implausible religion?

To summarize, Pro provided several well accepted measures of goodness, which supported the resolution that Pastfarianism is better than the Abrahamic religions. Con responded with a single, unjustified and unsupported argument that Pastafarianism is worse because it contains less suffering.

The choice is clear.

Vote Pro!
SeventhProfessor

Con

"The view that suffering is beneficial is NOT a common view"

But the idea that extraneous pleasure is sinful/wrong IS a common idea, making the hooker beer island in the sky remarkably immoral by this standard.

"What valuable lesson would innocent people learn from being stoned to death or being drowned by a vengeful god?

The stoned people's families learn to obey orders from higher powers, while the drowning was a cleansing. According to the story this cites, all that died were irreversibly evil.

"What is to be learned from following an scientifically implausible religion?"

Assuming this is true, one has a chance of eventually realizing such a religion were untrue and becoming less gullible/more questioning after said discovery.

Let it be noted that Pro never tried to justify the point that a religion being real does not necessarily make it better, he only tried to argue a neutral point on the topic.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
===================================================================
>Sojourner // REMOVED<

6 points to Con (everything except conduct). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con use of characterizing suffering as "good" was very legitimate contrary to what has been expressed in this debate. Pro was unable to counter the argument successfully which left Pro's position defenseless.}

[*Reason for removal*] Failure to explain S&G and sources votes.
===================================================================
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
bluesteel
===================================================================
>Reported vote: interloper // Moderator action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (everything except conduct). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented horrific verses from abrahamic texts and included links to Pastafarianism for review. Con took the angle of arguing that suffering is beneficial based of Nietzsche's philosophy. I have two problems with this: 1) For suffering to be beneficial or even experienced at all, one must be alive. Nietzsche's philosophy can't apply to the problem of ending life. 2) Nietzsche holds these positions and makes these claims about suffering, but we need substantiating evidence from the scientific fields of neurology and psychology to prove it. To Pro, I would recommend being as thorough as possible in your definitions and explanations as to avoid tactics such as Con's. Con, please note the issues I pointed out with your argument and do try to limit how far you are willing to go with semantic arguments... Arguing suffering as good is a little radical...}

[*Reason for removal*] (1) This RFD fails to explain why Pro won sources. It even says Pro cited "horrific" sources. (2) This RFD uses the user's own personal views to reject the Nietzsche argument. Judges must be tabula rasa and not rely on their own knowledge. Judges can only vote on arguments made in the debate. (3) Failure to explain S&G.
=====================================================================
Posted by sully3.14159 2 years ago
sully3.14159
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I also believe in Russell's teapot.
Posted by footballchris561 2 years ago
footballchris561
Once Pastafarianism becomes majority we can finally implement a law that will increase the amount of pirates which will consequentially stop global warming. =)
Posted by kman100 2 years ago
kman100
@wileyC1949
If this notion is ridiculous and obvious trolling, why don't you try to debate it? It can't be that hard to win against someone supporting a "troll device"

@ajanis1

I changed it to the Abrahamic religions
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Sorry, but the topic is rather silly and is obviously just an attempt to troll. There is no religion which "worships" the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" simply because NO ONE actually believes that the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists. It was invented as an illogical troll device and even the people who say they "believe" recognize it as nothing more than a troll device.
Posted by a_janis1 2 years ago
a_janis1
I wouldn't say this is a bad debate topic, rather I would say that stating "most mainstream religions" is somewhat hard to debate. The reason being that applying and then adressing so many different religions which, as often is the case, are fundamentally different is hard to do. If the debate were specified to a particular religion, then it would be easier to accept. Do you have a specific religion in mind?
Posted by kman100 2 years ago
kman100
@WillYouMarryMe
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

@Luaghitup
If the notion is that ridiculous, why don't you accept the debate?

@TBR
I honestly don't care to much about the religion (or lack of) of my opponent. Accept if you want.
Posted by WillYouMarryMe 2 years ago
WillYouMarryMe
Define "flying spaghetti monster"
Posted by LaughItUpLydia 2 years ago
LaughItUpLydia
Is this a trolling "debate"?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 2 years ago
Sojourner
kman100SeventhProfessorTied
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: Reasons for voting decision: Con use of characterizing suffering as "good" was very legitimate contrary to what has been expressed in this debate. Pro was unable to counter the argument successfully which left Pro's position defenseless.}
Vote Placed by WillYouMarryMe 2 years ago
WillYouMarryMe
kman100SeventhProfessorTied
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: The debate comes down to whether or not suffering is good. Pro concedes that it was a valid use of a semantics loophole, which IMO was a mistake because it really wasn't valid... but anyways, the result of this is that it is now Pro's burden of proof to refute Con's view of suffering (rather than Con's burden to warrant it). Pro raised a couple of good objections, but Con was able to adequately answer them in the final round, and he demonstrated the baselessness of Pro's own standard of 'goodness' by observing that it relies on the unsupported premise that being true is necessarily good. Thus, Con's framework remains standing and gives him the win.