My dolmio day

frozenfrozen

I came across a Christian fellow as per usual in my weekly religion class in school. The class is setup under the pretense that everyone's belief will be challenged and up until today, personal belief hasn't really been a factor as it's been mostly philosophically based.

...However: Today the class started off as follows;
teacher: Loving people is selfish [saying that people only love others to be loved in return. (A valid point, I agree, to an extent)]
student1: Then god is extremely selfish
teacher: What is god?
Me: The flying spaghetti monster
teacher: Please don't say things like that, it's offensive to people's beliefs.
Me: I find it insulting that you don't respect my belief in the FSM.
teacher: If you believe in the flying spaghetti monster then what is your proof that it exists?
Me: All through my life I have felt a connection with him.
teacher: But how do you know he exists?
Me: The world is here, and he created it.
teacher: How did he create it?
Me: He covered the vast nothingness with bolognese sauce and the world was created as we know it.
teacher: You can't possibly believe that.
Me: What bearing does it have whether I believe it or not; I'm allowed to have my own belief as are you.
teacher: You are allowed to believe in what you want, but you may not insult others beliefs as you have done by describing their god as a flying spaghetti monster.
Me: I was describing my god, who is of course in my belief the only god. Christianity or the like shouldn't get priority on this.
teacher: I've studied this for years *BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH* you have no scripture.
Me: Do you believe in all that is contained in the bible? Do you believe that god is the most powerful being in existence? Do you believe that Satan exists? Why doesn't god destroy satan if he is the most powerful
teacher: I don't believe in the bible fundamentally
Me: So you pick and choose your beliefs?
teacher: It would be absurd to follow the word of the bible fundamentally.
Me: It would be absurd to assume that a god exists.
teacher: Everyone is allowed their own belief and I would prefer if you didn't put others down in this class.


I don't normally go down to this level of basically trolling people, but to argue with ignorance, you must become ignorant.

I do not mean to offend ANYONE, however I would like to see opinions on this. What should someone in my position do in a completely one sided debate where the mediator is also your opponent? Not getting involved is not an option. And of course if you believe I'm completely in the wrong to say thing like this I would really like to see your opinion as that is the most confusing part of this for me, I have no idea what the problem with my belief, being satirical or otherwise.

Dades

There's a lot more constructive ways to argue against Christian beliefs than claiming to actually believe in the FSM, imo.

All you do is get their goat up.

Logical Fallacy

What bearing does it have whether I believe it or not; I'm allowed to have my own belief as are you.

Argument fail right there i have to say. You basically completely contradict yourself.

I don't see the point in arguing in this fashion...it's pretty much impossible to show someone that their faith lacks rational grounding because faith by definition isn't rational.

If i am honest i consider it to be the same kind of lame aggressive argument as people who endlessly ask for proof of God's existence and then look all proud when Theists can't provide it. Faith, by it's very definition doesn't require proof or evidence...it's largely the point.

Even your last point in the argument "It would be absurd to assume that a god exists" is once again way off point. The majority of Theists i have met don't assume that a god exists, once again it is a matter of faith. They have faith in their concept of the divine.

All this stuff is really theological debate 101 I would have thought.

suspectdevice

i guess its strange that you would post this in this thread since your belief in fsm makes you a theist

do you think you are agnostic or an atheist?

The Quadratic Equation

The thing about the FSM, is that the more God like you make him the harder it is to prove he does not exist. Russell's teapot is a much better argument.

The Quadratic Equation

frozenfrozen wrote: »

but to argue with ignorance, you must become ignorant.

Then I'm afraid all that makes you is ignorant.

Undergod

I don't think it's quite as bad as everyone is making it out to be; you're contrasting their belief with an equally absurd one. There are better methods though.

The Quadratic Equation

Undergod wrote: »

I don't think it's quite as bad as everyone is making it out to be; you're contrasting their belief with an equally absurd one. There are better methods though.

You may try to claim it to be equally as absurd, but in order for it to be a convincing argument you must prove it is as equally absurd. This is where the FSM fails.

Undergod

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You may try to claim it to be equally as absurd, but in order for it to be a convincing argument you must prove it is as equally absurd. This is where the FSM fails.

Fair point. I guess when that's your tactic, burden of proof falls on you to prove it's absurd, yeah. As such, Russell's Teapot is better, and it's much classier besides.

The Quadratic Equation

Undergod wrote: »

Fair point. I guess when that's your tactic, burden of proof falls on you to prove it's absurd, yeah. As such, Russell's Teapot is better, and it's much classier besides.

Exactly. Russell was an excellent philosopher.

"Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence."

- Russell's reply when asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, asking to know why Russell had not believed in him.

Might be a risky strategy through, arguing evidence with God, but sure might be worth a try if you're stuck.

I wonder how he got on.

Mistress 69

How old is this kid spouting the FSM. tHOUGHT the kid or his DaDDy or MaMMy was exorcised a while ago..... twaddle and dum dums!

fitz0

Dades wrote: »

There's a lot more constructive ways to argue against Christian beliefs than claiming to actually believe in the FSM, imo.

All you do is get their goat up.

Isn't that the whole point of the FSM? To rile the religious up on the basis of a comparison with their own deity that they draw themselves? The OP makes a very valid point above in playing devils advocate. The RE teacher should be promoting such debate and offering competent counter arguements rather than leaving it at "Don't say that, it may offend."

Daftendirekt

fitz0 wrote: »

Isn't that the whole point of the FSM? To rile the religious up on the basis of a comparison with their own deity that they draw themselves? The OP makes a very valid point above in playing devils advocate. The RE teacher should be promoting such debate and offering competent counter arguements rather than leaving it at "Don't say that, it may offend."

AFAIK the Flying Spaghetti Monster was dreamt up to make the point that you can't just say nobody knows how the universe came into existence, therefore God. More specifically, it was intended to satirise Intelligent Design or Creationism.

It does work as an argument against theism, though the problem is that most theists don't seem to get why. And if you're going to use this approach, it's important to be clear that your point is not merely to try and offend, but to demonstrate that it's okay to ask for people to support their claims with evidence.

And on that note, you're probably better of sticking with Russell's Teapot anyway. The argument of a renowned philosopher will probably command a lot more respect than a funny Internet meme. Though they both essentially make the same point.

MagicMarker

I don't see anything wrong with what you said OP, your point was clear.

Penn

I can see what you were trying to do, I just think saying you believed in Zeus or Thor would have been a far better argument to make and would have made your point stand out rather than appearing like you were just trying to annoy the other person.

Whether the person you debate is also the mediator or not, I think there are better ways you could have debated your point and kept things more civil.

Dades

fitz0 wrote: »

Isn't that the whole point of the FSM?

Well in my experience a debate started with the point of getting someone's goat up is a short, doomed debate.

Christianity has so many large holes that can be pointed out without immediately putting the opposition on a defensive display.

mcmoustache

In a debate with seasoned adults, I wouldn't go down this path for the reasons outlined by dades.

But the OP is in school and trolling his teacher so I think it was both funny and informative for his classmates.

ShooterSF

I wish I was as sure of my beliefs back in school. OP the thing is you gave your teacher an easy out by picking an obviously sattarical choice of deity. I know it can be fun in the right situation to reference the fsm but here picking Zeus or Thor would have made the argument for them much harder while still extracting urine as they are well documented and at one time had many followers. Instead of arguing the difference between the deity you put forward and their own they spent their time getting you to admit that believing in the FSM is absurd. Still, hope you had fun

Rev Hellfire

mcmoustache wrote: »

But the OP is in school and trolling his teacher so I think it was both funny and informative for his classmates.

Indeed, but perhaps not in the manner you think.

robindch

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I would really like to see your opinion as that is the most confusing part of this for me, I have no idea what the problem with my belief, being satirical or otherwise.

The problem is that, by saying this, you're indicating that you think that the christian deity is just as ridiculous as the FSM. And therefore, that anybody who thinks that the christian deity exists is as stupid as somebody who thinks that the FSM exists.

As others have said, better to use the example of Zeus or Thor. Or, if you're feeling brave, try Ahuru Mazda, the Zoroastrian deity who's pretty similar to the later Yaweh (old testament) and christian (new testament) and islamic deities.

frozenfrozen wrote: »

Me: He covered the vast nothingness with bolognese sauce and the world was created as we know it.
teacher: You can't possibly believe that.
[...]
teacher: Everyone is allowed their own belief and I would prefer if you didn't put others down in this class.

Irony, thy name is 'teacher'.

MagicMarker

robindch wrote: »

The problem is that, by saying this, you're indicating that you think that the christian deity is just as ridiculous as the FSM. And therefore, that anybody who thinks that the christian deity exists is as stupid as somebody who thinks that the FSM exists.

What's the problem here? :pac:

dmw07

I applaud your efforts OP. Your argument could do with a bit of refining as some people have pointed out but in my experience, trolling in the classroom gives you an initial audience who will listen to you, what you need to do is to keep them listening to you. How to do this, well i always fall back on the words of far superior men and woman to me. I am not so articulate and this sometimes is portrayed as a weakness in debate. The beauty is you have a world of experience to draw from now. Dawkins, Hitchens, Bertrand Russell, Stephen Fry, even Derren Brown!

By the way, i think that you are a very lucky person. I remember when i had my first doubts. I was ridiculed by my RE teacher for asking about the link between humans and Apes (About 16-17 years ago now). That did not go down well and the teacher pretty much victimised me for it afterwards. She mocked me in front of the classroom, alienated me and made an example out of me. I felt like JC I did not take it to heart because although she had a hard exterior and practically licked the feet of the local priest, she didn't even have conviction in her tone of voice when she tried to dismiss evolution nor when "trying" to convince me of my sin. Which i had made worse by asking these degrading questions about religion and evolution, of course.

I just had to throw in a "it was harder in my day". Even though i'm not that old!

Galvasean

dmw07 wrote: »

By the way, i think that you are a very lucky person. I remember when i had my first doubts. I was ridiculed by my RE teacher for asking about the link between humans and Apes (About 16-17 years ago now). That did not go down well and the teacher pretty much victimised me for it afterwards. She mocked me in front of the classroom, alienated me and made an example out of me.

Similar thing happened with me, but I (verbally) kicked her arse!
Actually saw her sown at the shops today and there is no animosity between us - something which cannot be said for that English teacher who kept accusing me of plagiarism....

sensibleken

Im going to disagree with everyone here and say keep it up OP. when i was at school many moons ago the only fun you I could have was argueing in religion class. I can totally understand not using logic against religion as we all know its impervious to it.

I would however take her to task saying we only love people to receive love back. it doesnt exactly pan out like that in religion class

dmw07

Galvasean wrote: »

Similar thing happened with me, but I (verbally) kicked her arse!
Actually saw her sown at the shops today and there is no animosity between us - something which cannot be said for that English teacher who kept accusing me of plagiarism....

Nice one. I wish i could have done the same. On reflection though, it's hard from the outside of the classroom!

dmw07

sensibleken wrote: »

Im going to disagree with everyone here and say keep it up OP. when i was at school many moons ago the only fun you I could have was argueing in religion class. I can totally understand not using logic against religion as we all know its impervious to it.

I would however take her to task saying we only love people to receive love back. it doesnt exactly pan out like that in religion class

I don't read anyone saying stop doing or thinking the way you do but there is a level of decorum he should adhere to. The OP asked a question which people are trying to help him answer. He obviously feels he needs to change his angle of attack, for want of a better expression.

I'd be interested to see if many have successfully debated about religion in school as it would show me how younger people think and talk about these things. Also, how school opinion has changed.

Roger Hassenforder

Irrespective of your choice of parody, i say fair dues to you OP, having such strength of conviction at a young age (assuming your not 28 and keep being kept back!) to take on an a purported person of authority and expose their intolerance. Good on you.

fitz0

Daftendirekt wrote: »

AFAIK the Flying Spaghetti Monster was dreamt up to make the point that you can't just say nobody knows how the universe came into existence, therefore God. More specifically, it was intended to satirise Intelligent Design or Creationism.

It does work as an argument against theism, though the problem is that most theists don't seem to get why. And if you're going to use this approach, it's important to be clear that your point is not merely to try and offend, but to demonstrate that it's okay to ask for people to support their claims with evidence.

True but in an arena such as a secondary school classroom, sometimes blunt ridicule is necessary to wake the rest of the class from the RE mindset (That its a doss class.) While not the most subtle satire of mainstream religion, it illustrates the point rather well.

Its interesting that none of the OP's classmates objected, it was the teacher. That's hardly creating an atmosphere conducive to lively debate, not that I would expect it from most teachers of the subject.

There are better ways to make the same point OP as most people here will tell you, but the FSM angle works too.

recedite

frozenfrozen wrote: »

I What should someone in my position do in a completely one sided debate where the mediator is also your opponent? Not getting involved is not an option.

Given the situation, debating against an "authority figure" you did very well, so well in fact, I find it hard to believe you are still in school. But if so, I think you will go far in life.
IMO the FSM is a much better analogy to use for this audience demographic than Russell's teapot.

frozenfrozen

Thanks to all of you for your input .

(I'm not quite 28; 16 as of June, for those who wondered .)

Amtmann

Out of curiosity, what are these better methods that some posters are proposing? (It's always handy to have several methods in one's repertoire when discussing this issue with religious people.)

dmw07

Tremelo wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what are these better methods that some posters are proposing? (It's always handy to have several methods in one's repertoire when discussing this issue with religious people.)

As i said in an early post you can fall back on the words of wiser men like i do sometime (as they are more articulate, i'm no lemming ) or you could:

1. Highlight that fairytales, myth and lore such as the tooth fairy and father christmas have been removed from general thinking, why not the major faiths gods? Humans have gotten rid of bad ideas as the world evolved, except religion.
2. Highlight the divisions that religion causes.
3. Highlight the amount of people who have died, fighting for religion.

Here is a nice link for you;
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=30940

swampgas

To me one of the more interesting angles is simply to point out that most people in the world are the same religion as their parents/community. So, if you had been born in a predominantly protestant country, to protestant parents, and went to a protestant school, there is a high probability that if you are religious, you will be protestant. Ditto for other religions and none.

You could argue that most of the catholics in Ireland are catholic simply as a result of where they were born and grew up. So, the question to the teacher and class is, why should anyone assume that catholicism is any more correct than any other religion or none?

Dades

Break it down to the most obvious.

Is it likely that the creator of the universe and time and matter would communicate to his 'chosen' people through burning bushes and carpenters in bronze age middle east? (And have completely human characteristics?)

If that is met with a wall of cognitive dissonance then, ask why little boys and girls die of starvation and disease in the dirt every minute of every day when all God has to do it make it rain.

Roger Hassenforder

Epicurus should be one of the arrows of reason in your quiver.

Be prepared for the vacuous natural evil argument as opposed to moral evil and divine plans etc., and dismiss accordingly as boiilcks.