And now for something completely different
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:14
VIEWED: 15117
PAGE 2 of 14
Quote:I have to agree with the last statement; and it is why the religious folk mentioned in the first post/quote above need to be careful how they phrase any rejoinder to the FSM 'movement'. Hopefully, their observations will be reflective of that fundamental fact.
Originally posted by antimason:
... to try and make the comparison to an imaginable, historically unfounded spaghetti monster has got to be the definition of intellectual dishonosty
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The dratted double!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi Anti! *stands up and waves* I was wondering where you had got to. I'm really really busy at the moment but I'd like to catch up.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The FSM is not a comparison of the entire Christian religion, only the unprovable parts such as the existence of god and the creation mythos. In such there is a valid comparison, there is as much evidence for the existence of the Christian god and the Christian creation myth, as there is for the FSM and it's creation myth. They are both as equally valid (or invalid, depending on how you look at it).
Originally posted by antimason:
is that not the least we could do? some around here would have us believe that we are without a shred of factual basis. maybe the presence of God himself cannot be proven, but the actual accounts of Israel(not Israel "of the flesh", the artificial nation, but Gods true believers), and the fruition of his message is there for all to see, having truly stood the test of time. to try and make the comparison to an imaginable, historically unfounded spaghetti monster has got to be the definition of intellectual dishonosty
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And on this point, I would disagree with you. I -know- FSM is a straw man. I do -not- know that the Abrahamic god is a straw man. I do not agree that they are 'equally invalid' since I know one to false, and believe the other to be indeterminate. If you cannot see the difference, I will question your objectivity.
Originally posted by citizen:
... They are both as equally valid (or invalid, depending on how you look at it).
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How is the fsm a strawman? An analogy perhaps, but it's not a strawman in any stretch of the word.
Originally posted by leadb:Quote:And on this point, I would disagree with you. I -know- FSM is a straw man. I do -not- know that the Abrahamic god is a straw man. I do not agree that they are 'equally invalid' since I know one to false, and believe the other to be indeterminate. If you cannot see the difference, I will question your objectivity.
Originally posted by citizen:
... They are both as equally valid (or invalid, depending on how you look at it).
I'd question your objectivity if you think there is more evidence for the Abrahamic god, they are both equally unprovable. You can't judge the argument based on your estimation of why it is being made, the arguments for the existence of god and the existence of the fsm are both equally valid. If you're basing your estimation of an arguments worth based on your own estimation of the arguer, rather than the argument, you're playing favourites with the source. It's also technically an Ad Hominem.
Looking at merely the merits of the two positions, rather than some subjective estimation of the objectives of their source, there is really little difference. There is no evidence for the existence of either. There is as much evidence for the existence of the Christian god, as there is for my invisible friend Harvey, or the fsm. By saying they're inherently different, you're merely playing favourites with sources, and I don't find appeals to tradition particularly compelling.
Heavily edited for clarity.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit:
I -know- that FSM is constructed as a strawman. Do you know that FSM was constructed as a strawman, or do you know or believe something different?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It depends what points you're trying to compare. I think the FSM is an analogy to the essentials of other religions - an unprovable belief and legitimacy through sharing. The exact nature of its inception is not an essential element. IMHO.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I asked how it was a strawman. How do you -know- it was constructed as a strawman (it wasn't but lets run with that?).
Originally posted by leadb:
Cit:
I -know- that FSM is constructed as a strawman. Do you know that FSM was constructed as a strawman, or do you know or believe something different?
You can tell strawman argument from it's logical construction, you don't need to know about the motivations of the source, and they're wholly irrelivent to it. You haven't told me why it's a Strawman, just that the people who constructed it, constructed it as one. That's an Ad Hominem, you're refuting the argument by attacking the source.
A Strawman argument is one where you setup an easily refutable argument, and try to pass it off as the position you're arguing against. The FSM has not been setup to refute religion, and it is no easier or harder to prove or disprove than Christianity or any other religion (at least with a logically consistant argument). It fails the very basics of being a Strawman argument.
Edit for clarity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Exactly. The source of the argument is irrelivent to the validity of the argument.
Originally posted by rue:
It depends what points you're trying to compare. I think the FSM is an analogy to the essentials of other religions - an unprovable belief and legitimacy through sharing. The exact nature of its inception is not an essential element. IMHO.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME