Parakeets do not exist.

Post Reply New Topic

What about dead parrots?...

If you can trust nothing around you, and no proof exists of anything, then the only way you could determine your surroundings would be through faith...

ain't that a kick in the haid...

Yeah, using the "flying spaghetti monster" as a justification for the position regarding the existence of God or gods seems lame, rather it seems to just follow a personal intuition and mostly the inclination of recurring to a popular notion created by someone else (not so much of being original) in response to I.D. because it looks attractive as a justification and for mocking, I tend to consider the term to be either meaningless or not enough of a justification, more like an intuitive (an not rarely emotional driven) notion.

Poor bird. Is that a model or an actual skeleton?

In the end, all such Dawkonian type parodies, whether it's Henderson's FSM or the invisible pink unicorn or the presence of macaroni and cheese being eaten on Mars, it really shows more about how the mocker feels about the subject than anything else. Even with my thread, yes it has philosophical implications, as does saying that I want the space program to gear up and start colonizing other planets, but this thread is not meant as an objective criticism either.

I'd go so far as to argue for the existence of some gods.
The term "gods" is and has been used for a group that may be even more diverse than the group called "animals".
For example, it seems to be a fairly common belief that love is a god, or divine phenomenon.
I may think that divinity is a superfluous concept in general, but if I am to accept divinity, I see no particular reason to deny love divine status.
In fact, "god" has been used by fairly large groups of people to describe many things that I am certain do exist.

Then again, some of those groups and their authorities claim that none of the others' are true gods.
It's all semantics until a particular, preferably well defined god is determined for examination.

Thank God for theological noncognitivism!

That is, unless you're the actuall troll here.

So what? this just goes further to prove my point that the book you call the bible is a plagerism of Cannanite mythology, Ba'al was a god that was worshiped by the Jews untill there was a religious war to eliminate his followers. This desctuction of the Jewish worshipers of Ba'al is doccumented in the bible.



That covers almost all of the Hebrew people. Every time you post something accurate, it points towards the mythological origins of the bible.

You are very adept at talking without saying a damn thing.

You're dismissing a reductio ad absurdum argument without giving any clear reason why.

Falsifiability as described by Karl Popper is not the only criterion for a theory to be considered scientific. However, it is widely accepted as a crucial feature for any scientific theory to be considered valid. Let me also respond to another statement you made in response to another poster.



There is no controversy about evolution or big bang cosmology verses intelligent design or creation in the academic community. All the evidence stands pretty much against a literal interpretation of genesis. What makes you think that everyone who does not believe in a literal interpretation of creation is an atheist anyway?

You're projecting your projection onto others, but in the end, you're the only one projecting here.

FSM isn't mockery, it's reductio ad absurdum. It contains all of the same basic elements as any other religion. Creation mythology, an anthropromorphic god being, a chosen people, rituals, rules, religious holidays and even schisms (Reform Church of Alfredo Sauce).

It appears as mockery to you, because when you strip religion of its supposed authority, it looks ridiculous to the outside observer. That's because every religion is ridiculous. That's why religion is force-fed to children and other psychologically vulnerable people.

To illustrate the point, think about this question. If I was to tell you that Christianity is wrong but Hinduism is right, and you looked into Hindu beleifs, wouldn't you consider Hindu gods to be ridiculous??

You could claim that, but it still misses the point. Take something that you believe exists. Your computer, perhaps. What persuades you that it exists? How would you persuade me that it exists? Can you apply the same criteria to decide whether a god exists?


I do say that even of polytheists if I want to highlight the question whether they apply the same standards when deciding on the existence of the gods they believe in and when they decide on the existence of the gods they don't believe in. Even Hindus, who have lots of gods, don't believe in even more other gods. I have yet to hear of someone who believes in the majority of gods whose existence has ever been postulated. If we quantify degree of atheism by the average strength of denial of the existence of all the gods that people have believed in, you may be more atheist than I am. As far as I know you are certain that only the Christian God exists, and categorically deny the existence of all the others. I only say I find it improbable that any god exists and see no merit in adding any of these hypotheses to my limited attempts to understand the universe.


I hope you understand that this lack of information does not persuade me that you do apply consistent criteria.

I thank you for adding to my vocabulary.

No, I wouldn't consider FSM to be a reductio ad absurdum to religion itself. At best, it is a reductio ad absurdum towards some attempts to create a natural theology because even the flying spaghetti monster could fulfill many of the requirements of these natural theologies. After all, it emerged as a result of the ID controversy.

Well, no, FSM *IS* mockery. I mean, nobody could reasonably say that FSM lacks a mocking component, and frankly, I think most would agree that mockery is the dominant foundation of FSM rather than honest belief or thinking the idea is true. I also wouldn't say that every religion is ridiculous. Most theologies to a certain extent bring religion to a rationality, seriousness and intelligibility. Does this mean that theologies are correct, or even necessarily great? No, but it is hard to deny that there are a lot of philosophical theologies out there.

I consider a lot of things ridiculous, however, a number of noted people have considered the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads to be deeply profound. Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is particularly notable for the amount of praise he placed upon the Upanishads.

Squawk topic

The only thing I am aware of to some extent is that Iamnotaparakeet is not a parakeet, by his own admission, and that to my own knowledge parakeets cannot chat as humans do, in a text format.

There is an interesting point connected with this, but before I get to it I need to know whether the propositions below are essential to your variant of the Christian faith.

1. The Christian faith (perhaps only your variant) is the only true faith. I don't remember the exact wording, but I'm sure Jesus is quoted as saying that the only way to salvation is through Him.

2a. God is just.

2b. God is merciful.