Posted on 04/06/2016 11:27:48 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in Brandenburg is suing the state over what they say is their right to post signs around town. […]
The FSM church explained in a statement that in December, it had discussed with local authorities its status and agreed it could qualify as an “ideological community”. They therefore had the right to post signs advertising their “noodle mass” — just as Protestant and Catholic churches advertise their own masses and gatherings with roadside signs.
Then, Brandenburg Culture Minister Sabine Kunst declared that because the spaghetti monster followers were not officially designated as a religious community, they would therefore have to remove the signs.
Worshipers saw no recourse but to bring the case to court. …
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.de ...
Couldn’t be any worse than THE FIRST PRESLYTERIAN CHURCH OF ELVIS THE DIVINE.
This question has sparked several intrapastine wars. The Orthodox believe that the FSM "has no sauce," and it is sacrilege to even suggest that he does.
The Reformed Pastafarians, on the other hand, claim that "Marinara is the one true sauce."
Various splinter sects take positions from meatless to mushroom, oil to alfredo, and everything in between. The most liberal of the FSM congregations have taken the position that "Saucing decisions are matters of individual conscience."
As with all faiths, be careful which you subscribe to! The decision may be more important than life or death...
Equal treatment as in being able to put up signs about your particular beliefs, whether you believe them or not, as the next guy. Should Scientologists be able to advertise?
It ain't rocket science. It's the kind of reasoning which makes rocket science --- and rocket scientists --- possible.
Put stickers on their signs that contain cartoons of Mohammed.
Hilarity ensues.
Look up the history of Germany and the Scientologists; that is a whole kettle of fish to itself.
As for “equal treatment”, when it comes to trying to impose equal treatment of both good and evil, then that’s an impasse for society.
If said treatment is reserved for religious groups, then it’s not “equal treatment” to demand it for non-religious groups.
At least the Scientologists make a pretense to religion, thin as that pretense may be.
Aristotle could figure this out, and he was not a believer in Abrahamic/Mosaic revelation. Probably never heard of it. But he was able reach reasonable inferences based on many converging lines of evidence, and to follow certain axioms to logical conclusions.
A person who could not follow this, could not begin (literally) to engage in scientific thought, by noting patterns and regularities in what one observes.
“An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.” — Fulton J. Sheen
The FSM came up to begin with because of an insistence on teaching Creation "Science." O...K..., but ... in addition to the problem that there is nothing scientific about it, exactly whose creation myth are you going to choose to teach? You literally can't teach them all, nor can they all be true (although they all can be, and are, false.)
Finally, sorry to burst your bubble, but Aristotle was a smart man who lived in times when we knew literally nothing about the universe. He had no understanding of physics whatsoever, and virtually none of mathematics either.
If you hitch your wagon to his star, you'll have to accept the idea that the universe must have a boundary, and there is, in fact, no requirement either physically or mathematically that it does.
Just because Aristotle and Paul lacked the rigorous mathematics to accept that fact, doesn't mean that we do. There is NO requirement that the dimension which now manifests itself as timelike always did, and it is quite possible that there is no beginning of time in the sense that you and the ancient savages mean.
“spaghetti, great! but with what kind of sauce?”
It really depends on the wine being served.
Sounds like they eat well.
Do you believe human conscience and consciousness ultimately emerged from mindlessness?
Nope, we can't, and citing ancient "authorities" on the matter isn't convincing. Appeal to authority is not itself a valid form of reasoned argument; it even has an ancient name: the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam. There is no ontological or epistemological reason to believe from first principles that the evolution of human conscientiousness from mindlessness is any less likely than the idea that there has always existed an Original Consciousness from which all consciousness comes.
However, reasonable that may seem to you or me, believing that is an article of faith and not a matter for scientific argument.
I have never seen the Pastafarians --- fun though they are --- exhibit the least interest in evidence or the least respect for argument. If I am wrong, I'd be glad to learn of it.
That's not a myth. You're confusing religious belief with scientific evidence -- again. We have plenty of evidence that there are fluctuations in the vacuum. It's happening in your body right now.
I'm not saying you're a Hawkingite --- probably not, in fact--- but I found this fascinating article about Stephen Hawking's reliance on the pre-existence of the laws of quantum theory at Mike Flynn's Journal (Link).
Pre-existing before matter, in fact "before all things visible and invisible." You may find it of interest. If you don't have the time, just skim through for the headlines :o)
Stephen Hawking Proves the Existence of God! Heh.
Bottom line: Hawking equates the "creation of the universe" with the "becoming of matter." And logically prior to this "becoming" stands a principle, a set of laws described by quantum theory. (This is logically prior, not prior in time. Time commences with the becoming of matter.)
IOW: Law precedes Matter and is the cause of it. This makes the Law the formal cause - i.e., "the form-specifying principle" - of that which would otherwise be formless. This is also Kool, since the Scientific Revolution deliberately rejected formal causes.
But since every thing that exists exists in some form, formless matter must be (in some way) non-existent. By bringing form to "formless matter" the Law brings matter as we know it into being. And we're back to Aristotle, again! There's no escaping that old rationalist. Like American Express, he's everywhere you want to be.
Πρώτη ὕλη. If we abstract [in thought] all characters and determinations from body, we arrive at a concept of characterless, undetermined matter, aka "prime matter." Formless matter, the πρώτη ὕλη (prote hyle), is pure potency and not actually anything. In particular, while it potentially exists, it does not actually exist. (It "lacks the act of existence.") Thus it is incorporeal because it is no actual body -- though it is the necessary underlying condition for bodies. So the prime matter is formless or chaotic and because it has no physical existence we can call it a "void."
So according to Hawking, there was a beginning; and in the beginning was the Law and the Law was all there was; and without the Law nothing came to be. And the Law was an immaterial being that was pure λογοϛ. And this Law gave form to the void of pure potency, prime matter.
Wait a minute...
Something about that sounds awfully familiar. Didn't someone say all that and say it more poetically a long time ago?
"In the beginning was the Word
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things came to be through him,
And without him nothing came to be."
But I don't think Hawking realized he was paraphrasing that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.