Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then the Abrahamic Relgions

I thank Con for his interesting remarks. This will be my final statement, as I (stupidly) only made three rounds in this debate.1. PlausibilityCons entire refutatio revolves around the claim that the Flying Spagetti Monster is made of matter, and therefor couldn't have created the universe. This stems from a missunderstanding of Pastafarianism. The Monster takes the form of a savory starch and meat dish, but is not physically made out of pasta or tomatos or meatballs. Just as God took the form of a burning bush in the bible, but was not physically a bush on fire, the Monster simply chooses to appear as pasta. Furthermore, even if the Monster was physically made of Pasta, the Christian God circumvates plenty of laws of physics (such as the conservation of mass), so I see no reason the the Monster can't do the same.2. MoralityCon asks why these (clearly) immoral acts are immoral. People don't deserve to be brutally executed for simply lying about their virginity or worshiping other Gods. The general public is disgusted with stonings and beheadings in third world countries, but continue to celebrate the Bible, the Torah and the Qu'ran, which explicitly condones these things. It comes down to the fact that all three religions portay God as vehemently authoritarian. Do what he says or be killed and tortured for eternity. This theme of submission or eternal torture is found in in many many passages, but some of the most telling and explicite references are found in Quran 3:56, Quran 5:33, Surah 22:19-22, Revelation 21:8. Surah 22 states that non-believers will be hit with iron rods, and drenched in boiling water, while Revelation 21 specifically states that unbelievers will be cast into a fiery lake of sulfur. The reasons that this is immoral is clear to all. People who disagree or are simply ignorant don't deserve to be tortured for eternity. In Pastafarianism, hell is only reserved for the exceedingly wicked, and the only punishment is that while heaven has a beer volcano, in hell, the beer is warm and stale. My opponent then tries to prove that scripture in the Torah does not apply to Christianity. He doesn't even attempt to defend Judaism or Islam, basically conceding that 2 out of the 3 abrahamic religions are less moral than pastafarian (which doesn't have a diety that advocates violent and brutal practises). Furthermore, even if Con had succsessfully proven that Christianity isn't immoral, he would still not have fufillled his burden, which was to prove that Christianity (and the other abrahamic religions) are better than Pastafarianism. Now to the verses (and I thank Con for his clear organisation):2 Timothy 3:16 All Con does is point out that there is a contradiction between 2 Timothy 2:16 and Romans 6:14. The fact that the bible is riddled with contradictions if more proof of my case. Furthermore, the verse which says "for thy are not under law but under grace" is saying "don't follow these laws because you have to, but because it is the right thing to do. Matthew 5:17The verse goes on to say "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" which further enforces the notion that everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. John 7:19Why would Jesus use the Law if he didn't believe it to be correct?3. Violence This violence was obviously unjustified. Destroying an entire city just because of sexuality? Sexuality is something that you are born with (as shown by modern sceince), and even if it is a choice, an entire cities worth of people don't deserve to die for making that choice! In the flood when he kills every living thing, he does it for no given reason. This is clearly not good. Even if some people were bad, does every child and bunny and petunia deserve to die horribly because of that? There must be a more peacful way to solve that problem! And finally, the killing of every first born in Egypt is just ridicolous. Killing every single child in an entire country is not justified just because their ruler did something bad. Should every first-born North Korean be slaughtered every time Kim-Jong-Un does something bad? Should every single first-born Iranian child be killed when their leader doesn't comply with western demands? And furthermore, the only reason that the Pharaoh refused to let the Jews go was that God hardened his heart (Exodus 9:12)! Basically, God makes the Pharoah do a bad deed, and then kills a ton of innocents to punish the Pharaoh? How is that justified? In conclusion, Pastafarianism is better or equal to the abrahamic religions. It doesn't have any of the violence and torture explained above, and is just as unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, Con doesn't attempt to defend Judaism and Islam, and also doesn't attempt to prove that Pastafarianism is worse (as is his obligation).