Why the Only Rational Atheist is an Oxymoron


The Flying Spaghetti Monster. That’s the best they can come up with.

 Some idiot writes a satirical open letter to the Kansas School  Board and atheists fall at the guy’s feet in hypocritical [and undeserved] worship. Why? Because the fellow states that we ought to teach [concerning origins] Intelligent Design, evolution and his unfounded, newly created Flying Spaghetti Monster story.

And it’s the best they can come up with.

This is better tha Dawkins oh-so-clever “Well, we’re here, aren’t we?” excuse.

I’d like to thank all fans of Pastafarianism for two things:

[1] The original letter makes a satirical point via a graph that correlation does not necessarily imply causality. [The diminishing number of pirates versus the increasing number of natural disasters does not imply that a decrease in piracy is CAUSING an increase in disasters.] Creationists have been saying this all along. Homology does not imply ancestry. Thank you for conceding this point with all of your noodly appendages.

[2] This tack proves once again that the only way atheists can combat Creationism, ID or any theistic theory of origins is by creating straw men, even Flying Spaghetti Straw Men. They can never address the real thing. They have to paint theistic theories as devoid of fact and science precisely because they would be forced that atheistic and theistic theories of roigins are on EXACTLY EQUAL FOOTING. Both are unfalsifiable. Both are unprovable. Both are supported by a weight of scientific evidences. One theory comes from the Word of God and is backed by true God-honoring science. One comes from the word of Darwin and is backed by godless scientists. Both require not blind faith, but a faith based on reason and evidences. A reasonable faith.

Inevitably, the Law of Contradiction demands that both theories of origins cannot be true.

Fortunately, the gus who actually use their brains are in the theist camp. 

The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Precisely because He exists. Their presupposition that there is no God, that there must be a purely natural answer for everything, dooms them to failure, for God exists no matter how much they wish and posture to the contrary.

–Sirius Knott

Advertisements

8 Comments Add yours

  1. Robert says:

    It’s obvious you’re just mad at the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your antipasto bias is readily apparent.

    The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable? ROFL!

  2. Roger says:

    This is so sad to read.

    I’m not sure if you are just writing to obfuscate the issue by throwing ridicule at something that is equally unprovable and probably based on as much actual science as ID is or if you actually honestly believe what you write.

    I’ll bet you don’t actually now anything about evolution or what ID proponents claim as proof for their idea. If you did you would not in a million years put them on equal footing.

    But frustrating as it is, there is no way logic and reason can trump superstition and indoctrination. At least not in the short run.

    Good thing godless science have time on it’s side, with you guys believing rapture is right around the corner and all.

    -Roger

  3. Sirius says:

    Show me how evolution is falsifiable.

    Darwin covered his tracks well. In each case that he described how his theory might be falsified, he also theorized how the problem might be overcome. For example, he insists upon “the extreme imperfection of the fossil record” when he notes that the fossil record doesn’t quite fit his theory. If you’ve read Origins, you will note how he never proves his theory, but is careful to say that we can’t say it’s impossible, especially given our present lack of total knowledge.

    As for the latter fellow’s poorly thatched straw man: this isn’t a battle between superstition and science or even faith and reason.

    Prove there is no God. What? You can’t? You take that on faith. You have arguments, reason and evidences [so do we!], but in the end it’s just what you believe. You CAN’T prove it.

    I take it from your baseless claim that you have no idea what the ID guys claim, outside of your favorite atheist apologist’s summary. Your latter statement indicates a general lack of information: Atheist science does not have time on its side. Time was once its friend, but the Big Bang imposed a time limit for all of your “given enough time” theories.

    Of course, you were refering to the imminency of the Second Coming. Your objection isn’t new…

    2 Peter 3:3-9 (New King James Version)

    3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,

    4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.”

    5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,

    6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.

    7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

    8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

    –Sirius Knott

  4. Robert says:

    Show me how evolution is falsifiable.

    All it takes is a bit of Internet searching. How hard is it to do that?

    Here is but one example.

    If you’ve read Origins, you will note how he never proves his theory,

    This is a laughably ignorant objection. Theories, unless mathematical, are never “proven”, but evidence is accumulated to either support or debunk them. What’s more, it’s foolhardy to expect that Darwin got every aspect of his theory correct. Some parts have been modified, but overall, his theory has been shown to be the best explanation for the diversity of life.

    Prove there is no God. What? You can’t? You take that on faith.

    Prove there is no Allah. Or Zeus. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What? You can’t? You take that on faith.

    We don’t have to disprove your claims. It’s up to you to provide evidence in support of them.

  5. Sirius says:

    Wow.

    I didn’t think anyone would actually be dumb enough to invoke the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a reply to as post about how weak the FSM straw man actually is! You guys simply do NOT listen.

    Or maybe it’s just that you don’t THINK.

    –Sirius Knott

  6. Robert says:

    Or perhaps we found your post that was weak.

    Are you going to respond to the content of my post, or pick on one insignificant point?

  7. Sirius says:

    Robert,

    I believe you actually stumbled onto my objection to the comment on my post: It only vaguely addressed the content of the post while heaping ridicule upon it without qualification.

    Following the shrill lead of Dawkins, a great many atheists/naturalists have taken to simply mocking and ridiculing opposing viewpoints and the commentators thmselves without actually attempting to engage the arguments.

    As to the only argument worth engaging presented in the post, concerning whether TalkOrigins had actually proposed valid examples of how evolution might be falsified, please read the following post:

    https://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/04/16/taking-on-talkorigins-evoltuion-is-an-unfalsifiable-tautology/

    Here’s the problem at hand:

    1. By virtue of the fact that both models purport to deduce the mechanics of origins, which are not observable,testable or reproducible, neither Evolution nor Creationism is either provable nor disprovable.

    2. The evidence, whether members of either side choose to admit to it or not, fit either theory.

    3. Since the issue at hand [origins] is in the past, we have only the fossil record to test theories against. Darwin lamented that the fossil record was imperfect, since it didn’t quite line up with his theory. It fits catastrophism perfectly.

    Have a peachy day,
    Sirius Knott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s