And now for something completely different
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:14
VIEWED: 15117
PAGE 4 of 14
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've always been a fan of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. However, as the FSM has stated before, Pirates are the source of all awesomeness. Ninjas are hollow parodies of them.
Boo-Yah.
-Danny
and every time I play with passion I start breaking strings,
and my voice cracks when I sing from my heart
guess that's the price I've got to pay to know that I'm alive
this melody is tearing me apart
THRICE RULES!!!!!!!!!
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I'm saying attack the argument on it's merits, not on which source you prefer. Your preference for Christians over 'Pastafarians' is your own bias, and as Fletch2 indicated, a value judgement as the logical merit of the arguement is independent of the person making it. If Stalin said genocide is wrong, your argument transposed would be that, that argument has less merit than if Ghandi said it, but it's the same argument whether Ghandi makes it or Stalin. Saying an Identical argument is less valid because of the source of the argument is nothing more than bias against the source of the argument, and is not a valid refutation. It is a logical fallacy (an Ad Hominem) and no matter what way you cut it, a logical fallacy is ALWAYS an invalid argument.
Originally posted by leadb:
Unless, of course, one person is lying, and the other person is telling the truth; but is able to perceive that which you cannot.
Your point is probably 'but I can't tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.' I understand.
Quote:No, it's not an attack on religion at all. Not unless you characterise Christian fundementalists not getting their own way all the time an attack. All that is being said is that from a scientific standpoint the FSM is as equally valid as God, and so if you want to teach Christian Creationism in science class, you'll have to teach any and all creation myths, because they are all equally valid. Even if you are so sure that your source is right every other creation myth must be a lie.
Much of all of this started from Christians trying to get their religious beliefs permitted into the public school systems on the grounds of fallacious arguments attempting to depict religious positions 'masked' as science. I consider this wrong; but find it is better to attack the science than the religion. FSM is an attack against the religion, not the science. If you want a really ugly fight, keep going down this path. But you can only get so far with a lie.
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:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Slobbering drunk and dressed like a pirate at a strip bar.
Mmm... I wish I could meet a female adherent of this religion.
Presumably so that you can impress her with your own Noodly Appendage...?
It was wall-to-wall marinara when we got here!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by WASHnwear:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Slobbering drunk and dressed like a pirate at a strip bar.
Mmm... I wish I could meet a female adherent of this religion.
Presumably so that you can impress her with your own Noodly Appendage...?
It was wall-to-wall marinara when we got here!
Heh. :-)
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cit:
I've lost interest. I concede I'm making a value judgment; I've conceded it several times.
Fundamentally, we agree; Creationism should not be taught in science class.
I believe that FSM approach is insulting to the Christian community, and is not the right way to approach the issue. Clearly, you do not agree.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then why continue to tell me the arguments weren't logically equivalent, which is all I said? A value judgement does not change the logical merits of an argument. Furthermore that a value judgement of the source can’t be used to dismiss an argument, so I don’t know what you’ve been arguing against? That an Ad Hominem isn’t a logical fallacy? Or that a Logical Fallacy is a valid form of argument?
Originally posted by leadb:
I've lost interest. I concede I'm making a value judgment; I've conceded it several times.
Quote:Only if you concede that Christian Creationism is insulting to everyone else, and the Intelligent Design is an open attack and insult to science. The FSM was never meant as an attack on Christianity, merely a logically equivalent parallel on scientific grounds. Whether some small subset of Christians takes it as an insult is neither here nor there. They're likely the same people that find the existence of non-Christians insulting though, so I really couldn't care less how much they're insulted.
I believe that FSM approach is insulting to the Christian community, and is not the right way to approach the issue.
What is the right way to approach the issue? Refutations of the science are simply ignored, or responded to with “well that’s your opinion” as if all opinions are equally weighted in a scientific domain. The FSM was an analogy for Christian Creationism, to try to highlight the unscientific nature of same to people that just don’t. Get. It. Unfortunately they’re not getting it on purpose, so the straight forward analogous approach is utterly lost on them. It may have been better too choose another recognised religion, Scientology perhaps, but then you’re just going to get accused insulting Scientologists, and the absurd nature of shoe horning religion into science just might be lost in favour of accusations of trying to shoe horn Scientology into the class room.
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
I have to come out of lurkdom to say that I agree with leadb. I mean, come on - there's not anyone out there who seriously, truly believes in their core that the FSM is real. Most everything about Pasterafarianism (wow - whatta word!) has been set up to silly, to be ridiculous. On purpose. It's a tongue in cheek bit of loopiness, supposed to be funny and ironic and make a point about teaching creationism in our schools, which I think it's hugely successful at.
As for Christianity... well, I'm not religious, not even a little in the tip of my pinky toe. I can make some guesses as to the real root of the Bible and all that, and the truth may be near as ridiculous and fictional as the FSM hoopla. But that's not the point. The point is, Christianity has a history, and that is of some importance. People grow up with it, and see that their grandparents grew up with it, and that builds all the Bible stuff into their subconscience as a truly inherent belief. *Belief* FSM doesn't even compare. Trying to argue that, in any individual's eyes, FSM and Catholicism as belief systems are or should be the same, is just... silly. Really really silly.
Now, in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of schoolboards, (even those in Kansas) FSM and Catholicism are the same. Absolutely. That is something I'll argue till I'm blue in the face (or purple, if Person A says so. Whatever. Gotta admit, I don't really get that whole thing leadb. 
)
Another observation I've made while reading this thread: Clearly, creationism is religion making up it's own science. FSM, on the other hand, is sorta like science making up a religion. The thing is, FSM is doing the act knowingly. I think this is why Believers find FSM so insulting - they're free to make up their own science, but we shouldn't be making up our own religion. The fact that our invented religion is as ridiculous as their invented science is the pure genius of it, imho.
Shoe's on the other foot, Bible-folks, how does it feel? 
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But considering that all religions start out at some point and that all reference we have for religion are either texts with claims of factuality or the reports of other people's religious experience - aside from our own genuine religious experience...
... isn't FSM just a few years of worship away from being a religion? Are the number of people believing in something the key component to what deserves respect in a society and what doesn't?
I mean, I get that it's a joke and all, but I don't see what about the comparison should be offensive. All it takes is one gullible fool and the FSM IS a genuine religious experience. And who's to say if someone genuine believes in it that it's no a real possibility for The Meaning Of It All?
Does the number of believers and the duration of its establishment determine the public respect we give to a concept?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This ends up being more of a tie back to the 'ends and means' discussion; there's a price I perceive to the FSM position which I'm not willing to pay.
Originally posted by citizen:
..so why...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe that FSM approach is insulting to the Christian community
And I believe that's an insult to the Pastafarian Community right there!
Pass the romano Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME