Got Questions Ministries, gotquestions.org

skip to: post comment | read comments

Quote# 46064

In short, the difference between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is this:

Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. Bobby Henderson simply begs the question (commits a logical fallacy) when he says that there are no good reasons for belief in God. Despite his claim to the contrary, Christianity is a rationally defensible religion. There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Christians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity. As believers, our pursuit of answers to our own deep-seated spiritual questions draws us further into the intellectual richness of the Christian faith.

Got Questions Ministries, gotquestions.org 53 Comments [8/29/2008 2:11:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Ladnil

WTF?! || meh

Username:
Comment:

Check here

#657985

Rat of Steel

Do these people even know what satire is?!

8/29/2008 2:13:48 AM

#657989

Allegory for Jesus

"Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons"

I just peed a little.

"Bobby Henderson simply begs the question (commits a logical fallacy)"

Now, if this person makes me laugh any harder, will he be prosecuted for homicide, or will they just settle for manslaughter?

"Christianity is a rationally defensible religion."

You keep saying that. I don't think that that in of itself will suffice...

"into the intellectual richness of the Christian faith."

LOLexplode.

8/29/2008 2:18:57 AM

#657992

HeathenAngel

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh.. wait, you were serious?

EEEEK Get out of my gene pool, please.

8/29/2008 2:27:01 AM

#657997

Zurahn

Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the God is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. Christians simply beg the question (commits a logical fallacy) when they say that there are no good reasons for belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Despite their claim to the contrary, Pastafarianism is a rationally defensible religion. There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Pastafarians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Pastafarianism. As believers, our pursuit of answers to our own deep-seated spiritual questions draws us further into the riboflavin richness of the Pastafarian faith.

8/29/2008 2:32:27 AM

#658000

Seamus D

Um, no. Christianity is not at all rational, nor is it defensible. I will give you kudoos for good grammar, however.

8/29/2008 2:33:38 AM

#658002

Sayna

"...Bobby Henderson simply begs the question (commits a logical fallacy)...."

"...Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons...*
"...Christianity is a rationally defensible religion..."

Dude. Begging the question, also known as "circular logic" is when your argument just goes in a loop and never really explains itself. When the premise and conclusion are the same thing, that's begging the question.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

8/29/2008 2:35:54 AM

#658003

A. Person

"Christianity is a rationally defensible religion."

BEGGIN THE QUESTION!!! LAWL!!!

8/29/2008 2:36:55 AM

#658006

Adam

Just because YOU say so does not make the statement true or otherwas factual.

"Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons"

Okay List them and then I'll list the same things for believing in a "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Also if your resolve and faith is so deep-seated then why even question it? HUH?! Ahh yes, to feed your ego.

8/29/2008 2:39:16 AM

#658008

Hadron

So there are idiots out there that actually think people believe in the FSM?

Christianity is anti intellectual, nothing rich about it, except for the fraudsters who are in church leadership.

8/29/2008 2:40:05 AM

#658009

Old Viking

I was subjected to years and years of assurance -- from some of the best indoctrinators in the business -- that Christianity is rationally defensible. And I was taught precisely how to mount these defenses. Turns out that, except to its brain-numbed adherents, Christianity is not even remotely defensible. It's intellectual sleight of hand to amuse those too frightened to investigate for themselves.

8/29/2008 2:40:22 AM

#658013

RavenWood

I LOL'd. A lot.

8/29/2008 2:43:25 AM

#658019

Jay-Sus

I think I just peed a little while laughing.

8/29/2008 2:52:11 AM

#658021

Dax

In Re the site.
Arguments for the existence of god are NOT evidence for the existence of the aforementioned doohickey

8/29/2008 2:56:43 AM

#658025

jc

Of course you will never hear these 'good reasons' in any form.

8/29/2008 3:14:22 AM

#658027

Horsefeathers

"There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Christians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity."

Of course not. It's the fact that you can't answer those difficult questions to any degree of satisfaction that is grounds for dismissing Christianity.

8/29/2008 3:18:15 AM

#658030

Dr. Funkenstein

Parody is lost on the ignorant, so let's be clear:

No one believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke...a jab at your own blind faith.

8/29/2008 3:20:22 AM

#658035

Ambrielle

You can't just say it's rational and defensible. You have to provide the reasons and evidence for why.

8/29/2008 3:27:11 AM

#658038

Thejebusfire

Despite his claim to the contrary, Christianity is a rationally defensible religion.
Read the OT and then tell me it is "rationally defensible".

8/29/2008 3:31:03 AM

#658040

Smith

"There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Christians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity."

And yet the second you must answer difficult questions about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you just give up.

8/29/2008 3:31:38 AM

#658047

anonymous_troy

Begging the question is defined as supposing a situation in which your conclusion is correct, then stating the conclusion is correct without actually proving anything.

However, Henderson is correct to say that there is actually no evidence for God. Begging the question would be more like, "I can conceive of a perfect god. Perfection necessitates existence. Therefore a perfect god must exist."

"but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity."

Yes, it is. There are questions about the nature of Christianity itself that show it is illogical, and there are no good answers.

8/29/2008 3:39:26 AM

#658051

myheadhurts

bullshit

8/29/2008 3:47:29 AM

#658065

Philbert McAdamia

the intellectual richness of the Christian faith.

Oh my Koresh and Zeus! This has to be the most blatant oxymorom I've ever seen. It reminds me of a radio ad I heard about 30 years ago about some flimsy 59¢ product as "The finest craftsmanship Taiwan has to offer".

8/29/2008 4:03:41 AM

#658075

DaMentalFunism

Meh. Not a fundie comment; just a Christian one.

8/29/2008 4:10:51 AM

#658087

Android R

The FSM has more support than God. The FSM is invisible, and affects things without being noticed, whereas God has caused floods, burned bushes and killed people.

8/29/2008 4:21:36 AM

#658177

werewolf

Intellectual? That's rich!

8/29/2008 6:01:47 AM