And now for something completely different

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:14
VIEWED: 15117
PAGE 10 of 14

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Sorry, sig and cit! Thanksgiving day distractions... cooking and posting at the same time... I did mean to say I'm a fan of citizen. But I'm a fan of siggy too.

NP, I've got the week off work, I moved house recently and I'm doing all those things I haven't had a chance to do yet, this is a good distraction from sorting papers, filling bank statements, fixing the boiler...

Quote:
So, citizen, here's the deal you don't seem to get: a Bible thumper can be a believer even if everything in the Bible is false. A FSM believer can be a liar even if the FSM is real.

No, I get that just fine, I'm not sure where you could have got the thought I don't. My contention was not that they can't be a liar, it's that its not anyone elses place to call them a liar, because then you're deciding what other people believe for them. Whether you're right or not in your assertion is irrelivant.

Quote:
What I'm arguing has nothing to do with whether the belief system is real, it has to do with what's in the head of those in the debate. Which... I said this before, but have to say it again... I can't know, of course, but if I had a lie detector, things would shake down in what I think is a predictable way.

And until you have that perfect lie detector, and it's proven that every person that says they believe in the FSM is a liar, you can't make that statement. My very point is that it's all about whats in their head, and the only person that really knows what's in there is them, and until that changes you're just going to have to accept that when someone says "I believe", that they do.

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.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Sorry, sig and cit! Thanksgiving day distractions... cooking and posting at the same time... I did mean to say I'm a fan of citizen. But I'm a fan of siggy too.

So, citizen, here's the deal you don't seem to get: a Bible thumper can be a believer even if everything in the Bible is false. A FSM believer can be a liar even if the FSM is real.

What I'm arguing has nothing to do with whether the belief system is real, it has to do with what's in the head of those in the debate. Which... I said this before, but have to say it again... I can't know, of course, but if I had a lie detector, things would shake down in what I think is a predictable way.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

What I don't get is... what does it matter if someone believes something or SAYS they believe something? We can hardly take anyone who ever utters the word "faith" to a lie detector to prove whether they are really believers or just claiming to be. And even if we did, what would it matter? Does the act of believing something entitle anyone to more respect for their object of faith than the act of constructing a theoretical object of faith?

If one faith is taken at face value at the utterance of a person, all should be, regardless of how popular. Respect for faith is just a game of numbers, otherwise. Numbers of age, of followers, of powerful people agreeing with it.

MAL4PREZ

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What I don't get is... what does it matter if someone believes something or SAYS they believe something? We can hardly take anyone who ever utters the word "faith" to a lie detector to prove whether they are really believers or just claiming to be. And even if we did, what would it matter? Does the act of believing something entitle anyone to more respect for their object of faith than the act of constructing a theoretical object of faith?

Oh geez. I'm in it now LOL! Guys, I'm not trying to make any sweeping statement about validity of any faith. I'm just empathizing with leadb, or anyone who's been committed to something for their whole life and then sees someone else sortof kindof seeming to shake their ass at it. I'd prefer if he'd view all this with a sense of humor rather than being offended over it, but I do understand that his emotions are involved. I feel for him. I see why it bothers him. Logical or not, I understand his frame of mind.

Edit to add: I don't think this gives him any free ticket cause his beliefs are better. Just saying... I understand. That's all.

Cit said: "The tacit implication of deciding that the FSM isn't a valid belief, and anyone who says they believe it is a liar, is that you've also decided that Christianity et al. are real beliefs, and those people are not liars."

This is where I see you not separating the state of the believer from the state of the belief system. To stress: "deciding that the FSM isn't a valid belief, and anyone who says they believe it is a liar" I'm not equating these two.

In a debate with an FSM-er, I could say that they are professing false beliefs without saying that FSM is a false belief. Get it?

When debating an ID-er, I could say the same. Or, in reverse, I could see their individual belief as firm and heartfelt without agreeing at all with ID. Get that?

Again, I am not arguing the larger picture here, or telling anyone what they do or should believe, but just commenting on people as I observe them. Sure, I could be wrong. But I find this interesting and important, because I like to understand individual people's motivations. I find that as interesting and insightful, sometimes, as the nebulous theoretical matters of principle. Which - I say - we're all in agreement on here.

Quote:
It's not your place, or anyone else's, to decide which beliefs are real, and which are fake. You can believe they are fake all you like, but you have no right to then force that belief on someone else.

Again, not doing that. Making some effort at understanding folk's state of mind is all. Why is this such a crime?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What I don't get is... what does it matter if someone believes something or SAYS they believe something? We can hardly take anyone who ever utters the word "faith" to a lie detector to prove whether they are really believers or just claiming to be. And even if we did, what would it matter? Does the act of believing something entitle anyone to more respect for their object of faith than the act of constructing a theoretical object of faith?
Oh geez. I'm in it now LOL! Guys, I'm not trying to make any sweeping statement about validity of any faith. I'm just empathizing with leadb, or anyone who's been committed to something for their whole life and then sees someone else sortof kindof seeming to shake their ass at it. I'd prefer if he'd view all this with a sense of humor rather than being offended over it, but I do understand that his emotions are involved. I feel for him. I see why it bothers him. Logical or not, I understand his frame of mind.

Edit to add: I don't think this gives him any free ticket cause his beliefs are better. Just saying... I understand. That's all.

I don't understand. Or rather, I don't consider that sort of offense valid. It's an expression of vanity, at best. Like envy. It's an inherently vain and unjustified emotion that can be aknowledged but should not be respected.

Faith should be a reward in and of itself. It should not require the respect and agreement of other people, beyond what is considered necessary to follow one's religious rites. A believer of whatever direction should not care one jot about what the person next to them believes or claims to. Or compares them to. Unless it infringes upon the secular space that is supposed to connect us all neutrally. Any kind of offense or idea of "true believer" or "liar" is nothing but the attempt to expand what is of private and personal importance upon a general, public sphere where is doesn't belong.

I like junk food. I am not going to be offended by people who like fruit and say their love of fruit is like my love of junk food. Unless they try to force their fruit on me, That's how it should be. Everything else is powerplay and that's why I can't respect that feeling of offense Christians or other believers may feel at that sort of comparison.

Nor do I believe most do, really, so this is all just hypothetical. :)

CITIZEN

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
This is where I see you not separating the state of the believer from the state of the belief system. To stress: "deciding that the FSM isn't a valid belief, and anyone who says they believe it is a liar" I'm not equating these two.

If you're making a blanket statement that everyone who says they believe something is a liar, you're saying that it's not a real belief.

Quote:
In a debate with an FSM-er, I could say that they are professing false beliefs without saying that FSM is a false belief. Get it?

Yeah, but you can't bring in the status of all FSMers as liars without questioning the common link.

Quote:
When debating an ID-er, I could say the same. Or, in reverse, I could see their individual belief as firm and heartfelt without agreeing at all with ID. Get that?

Theres a difference between saying "you're lying" and "everyone who says this is lying".

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.

LEADB

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What I don't get is... what does it matter if someone believes something or SAYS they believe something? We can hardly take anyone who ever utters the word "faith" to a lie detector to prove whether they are really believers or just claiming to be. And even if we did, what would it matter? Does the act of believing something entitle anyone to more respect for their object of faith than the act of constructing a theoretical object of faith?

If one faith is taken at face value at the utterance of a person, all should be, regardless of how popular. Respect for faith is just a game of numbers, otherwise. Numbers of age, of followers, of powerful people agreeing with it.

Please read:
The People's Temple, led by James Warren (Jim) Jones
http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm

I believe it is sometimes not just proper, but necessary, to call it like you see it. In general, I'm all for religious tolerance.

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What I don't get is... what does it matter if someone believes something or SAYS they believe something? We can hardly take anyone who ever utters the word "faith" to a lie detector to prove whether they are really believers or just claiming to be. And even if we did, what would it matter? Does the act of believing something entitle anyone to more respect for their object of faith than the act of constructing a theoretical object of faith?

If one faith is taken at face value at the utterance of a person, all should be, regardless of how popular. Respect for faith is just a game of numbers, otherwise. Numbers of age, of followers, of powerful people agreeing with it.

Please read:
The People's Temple, led by James Warren (Jim) Jones
http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm

I believe it is sometimes not just proper, but necessary, to call it like you see it. In general, I'm all for religious tolerance.

I'm saying all faith should be taken at face value, not that we should allow all that comes with the practice of such faith.

We don't do that with any religion, or shouldn't: allow it to supercede law. That's a constant struggle, really. I'm just saying, the FSM should be no less or more above the law than Christian faith, in public discussion. No matter whether Christians "really believe" or not. Nor should lie detectors be employed. It's utterly irrelevant what kind of faith or proclaimed faith is involved if laws are broken. Faith is no factor in law. Or shouldn't be!

DRAYKE

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:23 PM

I guess we can not really Believe in Anything, because even our senses can be suspect.

So we will not Ever know if our Beliefs and any conclusions we make are real !

(Unless GOD tells us so...)

Ahhh.....wait a minute now.....

;->

I vote we suspend this argurement until it can be judged by a agreed upon Higher Power.

I guess it just takes a bit of Faith...

Bwahahahahhahahahahha!!!!

DRAyKE

ps: Cool site you have here....

By the twitching of my thumbs something DRAyKie this way comes...

RUE

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:36 PM

Random thoughts

Thanks for the reply LeadB.

I have a nasty sense of humor I think. I find it very funny that LRon's money making machine is working beautifully and he's not here to enjoy it. And assuming he comes back, maybe he'll be a hamster.

I can see both sides of the argument. I think even if you know that FSM was started as a joke, logical argument - whatever - you can't say that everyone who professes belief is a liar. OTOH, it may be a bad tactic. The US has the 'Defense of Marriage Act' b/c people thought that gay marriage demeaned their own marriages. So while it takes a petty humorless zealot to find FSM demeaning to your own religion, there seems to be no shortage of them.

***************************************************************
My apologies to all the petty humorless zealots.

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA

Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
...considering our form of constitutional liberty and divine providence is based on judeo-christian theological teachings, it baffles me that so many of you can refer so contemptuously to the bible and its accounts....

Ummm, I'll read the rest of the thread later, but I just have to point our a fallacy here - sorry if its already been done.

Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli -

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

So according to the government ((And remember, they said this before they decided to give up any and all semblances of Honesty and Statesmanship for Lying and Politikal Kulturny Backstabbing)) your above statement, Antimason, is patently false.

Just thought you ought to know.

Edit: Ok, I read the thread.

I've got a few points I'd like to discuss that were brought up here, so forgive me if I am necroing or if I get all Socratic on you.

As to the colour of a sign, the sky, calling a spade a spade &c. - What you see as a Spade I may see as a hoe, or a deer. If I am to state this, calling what you realize as a spade a deer, I am not lying am I? I am simply stating what I believe ((And have every reason to believe)) even if it runs contrary to what you see. We cannot possibly argue that one's senses are more valid than another's when we get down to it, though I'd be willing to for the sake of brevity.

As to the Beliefs espoused by Pastafarians being lies - LeadB, isn't this your Belief? And if so, why are your beliefs as to the validity of their beliefs valid? Could not a hypothetical "LeadC Prior of The Flying Spaghetti Monster" come along and decide that your belief that his beliefs are lies are also lies? In that situation, who can know really?

As to Lie detectors - Polygraphs are easy to beat with a bit of practice ((I speak now from personal experience)) and so I think this entire line of reasoning is invalid. You see, a polygraph itself doesn't say unequivocally that a subject is truthful or lying. That is the job of the person administering it, and thusly, they are the one you have to beat; their beliefs about what you're saying and what the polygraph shows against your beliefs that you reveal. I have myownself told the truth to the person giving me a polygraph, but put myself in a mindset where that would be a lie, and when he called me on it, I demonstrated to him that in fact I was speaking the truth. ((As an aside: It was funny, a question came up as to the colour of my eyes, and I told him that they were blue but made the graph look like I was lying [[it's only a bit of method acting]] and he believed it until he actually looked up at my eyes.))

Truthfully, can one reasonably expect any faith to be valid in the eyes of everyone? That seems to be the measure we are espousing here. If one person believes that the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the truth - maybe they have a genuine religious experience pertaining to it, reinforcing their beliefs - and the "prophet" who wrote it doesn't, does that mean that the believer is wrong? I don't think so, because I think with these Scientifically-non-provable-and-equally-non-
disprovables we cannot unequivocally say that any belief is valid or invalid.

If I believe that a Chair is a Chair, and Citizen Believes that the same Chair is a Stool, and Mal4Prez believes that it is also a stool, and LeadB Believes that it is a straw-man made to appear as a stool, and Rue believes the Chair/Stool/Thing to be a Hippocampelephantocamelos are any of us right or wrong? Could we not be Both?

The issue that

PREV PAGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT PAGE