Real World Event Discussions
And now for something completely different
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:14
VIEWED: 15117
PAGE 11 of 14
Friday, November 23, 2007 1:33 AM
Quote:I believe during prohibition that churches could still use wine. Certain native American folks are permitted to use and distribute substances (for the ceremonies) which by 'ordinary' Americans would yield arrest and prison terms. We do often allow laws to be circumvented due to religious traditions.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
We don't do that with any religion, or shouldn't: allow it to supercede law.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 1:45 AM
Quote:I believe I established precisely that in my 'tale'; provided you account an honest statement of your perception, I will not disagree.
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
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?
Quote:and my tale supports that
I am simply stating what I believe ((And have every reason to believe)) even if it runs contrary to what you see.
Quote:Which is what I said; so I presume your above statement is in concurrance with my earlier observation?
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.
Quote:Precisely correct, which I said above.
As to the Beliefs espoused by Pastafarians being lies - LeadB, isn't this your Belief?
Quote:I have provided reasons as to what I believe; you may accept the reasons or reject them. That would be your call.
And if so, why are your beliefs as to the validity of their beliefs valid?
Quote:Yes, and I would take comfort in knowing that I have written the truth of my beliefs. If he wishes to believe that I'm lying when I may simply be wrong is something I can live with. I would suggest you ask this LeadC what his -reasons- are for what he believes.
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?
Quote:Well, I will know I'm telling the truth; you will have to assess whether you find more credence in my statement or LeadC's. I wish you the best of luck.
In that situation, who can know really?
Quote:Yes, it is not perfect.
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.))
Quote:This is true. I still stand by the beliefs above. I still believe they are lying.
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.
Quote:Absolutely; and in the above case it would never occur to me that any of them were lying; and I would say each is correct.
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?
(Edit: Ok, I
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 5:03 AM
Quote:Thing is, I do believe that the vast majority of FSM-ers do not in their heart of hearts BELIEVE in the FSM. That is my personal belief, based on my own logic and observations. Are you telling me that I can't believe that if I choose to believe it?
Originally posted by citizen:
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.
I also think the vast majority of Christians do believe in God and the Bible, but I don't believe that the Bible is correct and valid. Are you telling me I can't believe that either?
Quote:I believe you can. (I getting the hang of this...)
Yeah, but you can't bring in the status of all FSMers as liars without questioning the common link.
AR: I don't believe any forms of "taking offense" are valid, and yet it happens. Where is the harm in trying to understand an offended person? And please don't go into "the attempt to expand what is of private and personal importance upon a general, public sphere where [it] doesn't belong" or "faith is no factor in law" because I've already stated my position on this several times. Belief/law separation, yay! Duh!! (How many times will I need to say this again... *sigh*)
OK, let's try another example. If antimason came on here and posted "I believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and God created it and there is little to no evolutionary change cause the Bible says so," I would believe that he believes that. I believe he's wrong, but I believe that he believes.
If Citizen posted: "I believe that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world yesterday and placed the fossils in the earth with His Noodley Appendages," I wouldn't argue over it, because I'd believe that he's playing at something and doesn't really believe what he's saying. Capisci?
Certainly, this example is no blanket statement, it depends on my experience with these two posters, and using the word "liar" is maybe too strong a statement, really, because it'd just fun irony on Citizen's part and not a villianous attempt to deceive. (As I see it.) Although, if you're going to be strict about it, if citizen posted the above and did not truly believe in the FSM as THE GORRAMNED ONLY TRUTH IN THE VERSE, he would be lying. You know. Strictly speaking.
Does that example help you understand me at all?
(bonus: how many times did I use "believe" in this post? top that! LOL!)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 6:28 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
As stated previously, I believe a better tactic is to attack the -science- of ID.
You can't attack something that doesn't exist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 6:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If antimason came on here and posted "I believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and God created it and there is little to no evolutionary change cause the Bible says so," I would believe that he believes that.
If?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 7:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
As stated previously, I believe a better tactic is to attack the -science- of ID.
You can't attack something that doesn't exist.
Bravo! My hat is off to you sir.
LeadB - I didn't mean for my questions to be directly aimed at you, and I apologize if any hurt was caused. That said, by your responses it seems to me that I must ask some further questions.
Firstly - Even if you have all the evidence in the world that someone is Lying about their beliefs, in the absence of a thought-reading device ((Which I believe to be entirely impossible, just for the record)), can you unequivocally say they are lying?
To explain, when I said "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?" would you not have every reason to believe that I am lying, given your arguments? Because you see a spade, and I am giving you every reason to believe that I am seeing the same object, yet I refuse to believe it is anything short of a deer, could you not conclude ((Once again, by your arguments)) that I am lying? Even though in my realization of the world, what I say is absolutely true. And could I not thusly call you a liar as you are calling a deer a spade?
Secondly, wait, *Gasp!* I have had a Eureka Moment! (("Epiphany you Dumbass!" screams a small voice in my head.))
It would seem to me LeadB, that you are saying that you believe that Pastafarians are lying, but are open to our believing that you are stating these beliefs in less than good faith, and are thusly yourself lying! If so then I applaud you sir on your egalitarian position!
All in all I believe this has been a constructive post, for me at least! I think I now have a better understanding of you, LeadB, philosophically speaking. To quote The Last Samurai
Quote:
"This has been a very good conversation."
I look forward to further philosophical discussion my Forum Friends, and bid you all adieu for the night, and happy thanksgiving.
"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 12:10 PM
Quote:You can believe what you like, but then saying "they're all liars", you're setting up your belief as more important than another's.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Thing is, I do believe that the vast majority of FSM-ers do not in their heart of hearts BELIEVE in the FSM. That is my personal belief, based on my own logic and observations. Are you telling me that I can't believe that if I choose to believe it?
I also think the vast majority of Christians do believe in God and the Bible, but I don't believe that the Bible is correct and valid. Are you telling me I can't believe that either?
Quote:Again, believe as you wish, but if you then move that belief on to a blanket statement about other people, then you're forcing your beliefs on to others. Further, if your saying "Everyone who believes X is a liar", the implication is that the belief isn't a real belief.
I believe you can. (I getting the hang of this...)
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
Friday, November 23, 2007 12:38 PM
Quote:No harm, nor hurt, nor even foul; it's just little ol' me, UnderFowl. Sorry didn't sleep well. Seriously, no harm at all.
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
LeadB - I didn't mean for my questions to be directly aimed at you, and I apologize if any hurt was caused. That said, by your responses it seems to me that I must ask some further questions.
Quote:I have stated that I believe they are lying. I will leave in your hands to assess if this is an 'unequivocal' statement at or not.
Firstly - Even if you have all the evidence in the world that someone is Lying about their beliefs, in the absence of a thought-reading device ((Which I believe to be entirely impossible, just for the record)), can you unequivocally say they are lying?
Quote:I would have several possibilities. You might be teasing me(which for purposes of my primary position, would mean I in fact believe you are lying, just a 'white' lie). You might be insane (please do not take this personally; you have chosen the mode to refer to 'you and me', and thus I am telling you things I would consider; to date, I have no particular reason to suspect that you are insane (this advisement applies to all such future references)). You may have a medical condition which causes you to apply the wrong word to things. Keep in mind, my 'accusations' of lying above are strictly limited to the Pastafarians claiming to truly believe in FSM; and the claim is based on my study of history, current affairs, and my understanding of the nature of people. Before I could possibly assess the truth of your statements, I would need a context for this spade and why you, especially as an individual, would be calling it a deer. I'm open to many possibilities.
To explain, when I said "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?" would you not have every reason to believe that I am lying, given your arguments?
Quote:I could; but then I might decide you were insane. I have not context to work from.
Because you see a spade, and I am giving you every reason to believe that I am seeing the same object, yet I refuse to believe it is anything short of a deer, could you not conclude ((Once again, by your arguments)) that I am lying?
Quote:First, feel free to call me a liar on the topic. Expect others, before believing you, to ask for your reasoning. They may wish to examine your motives, and may not be satisfied. On my account, if the claim does me no harm, I will not take action against you; unless you succeed in convincing me you are insane and a genuine danger to the population, in which case we might call in folks to fit you with one of those -long- sleeve white jackets. Of course, I understand the risk; everyone else might see a deer and decide that if anyone needs the jacket, it is me. I accept the risk of this outcome.
Even though in my realization of the world, what I say is absolutely true. And could I not thusly call you a liar as you are calling a deer a spade?
Quote:Very nice original thought. However, I am sincere in my belief that the Pastafarians are lying. I will note that in an earlier post, I may someday be convinced there is a sincere Pastafarian who genuinely believes in the existence and divinity of the FSM ; in which case I will have to amend my position that the religion merely founded as a false religion. To date, I have not been so convinced of any such instance.
Secondly, wait, *Gasp!* I have had a Eureka Moment! (("Epiphany you Dumbass!" screams a small voice in my head.))
It would seem to me LeadB, that you are saying that you believe that Pastafarians are lying, but are open to our believing that you are stating these beliefs in less than good faith, and are thusly yourself lying! If so then I applaud you sir on your egalitarian position!
I will also advise that I've read a great deal about the various uses to which the religion of the FSM 'adherents' have put the 'religion.' In ge
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 1:13 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:Quote:I believe during prohibition that churches could still use wine. Certain native American folks are permitted to use and distribute substances (for the ceremonies) which by 'ordinary' Americans would yield arrest and prison terms. We do often allow laws to be circumvented due to religious traditions.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
We don't do that with any religion, or shouldn't: allow it to supercede law.
In that case these are specific, explicit exceptions to the law that should apply to all religious practices concerned. The law makes exceptions for religion as a concept, not for specific religions above others. I can accept that, as long as it is practiced equally.
In this case the nature of the exception is paramount, not the benefector of that exeption. If exceptions are made for certain religions but not others then there's a problem that clearly needs to be addressed.
Also, if the nature of those exceptions interfers with the point of the law.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Friday, November 23, 2007 2:19 PM
Quote:Not all religions are treated the same.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
In that case these are specific, explicit exceptions to the law that should apply to all religious practices concerned. The law makes exceptions for religion as a concept, not for specific religions above others. I can accept that, as long as it is practiced equally.
In this case the nature of the exception is paramount, not the benefector of that exeption. If exceptions are made for certain religions but not others then there's a problem that clearly needs to be addressed.
Also, if the nature of those exceptions interfers with the point of the law.
http://www.mjlegal.org/religious.html
No Mary Jane for the devout.
(Note: I'm not arguing for or against the legalization of Marijuana, merely making an observation.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME