And now for something completely different
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:14
VIEWED: 15117
PAGE 1 of 2
ZOUNDS!
Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti MonsterQuote:
www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flying.spaghettimonster.ap/inde
When some of the world's leading religious scholars gather in San Diego this weekend, pasta will be on the intellectual menu. They'll be talking about a satirical pseudo-deity called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose growing pop culture fame gets laughs but also raises serious questions about the essence of religion. The appearance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on the agenda of the American Academy of Religion's annual meeting gives a kind of scholarly imprimatur to a phenomenon that first emerged in 2005, during the debate in Kansas over whether intelligent design should be taught in public school sciences classes.
... An Oregon State physics graduate named Bobby Henderson stepped into the debate by sending a letter to the Kansas School Board. With tongue in cheek, he purported to speak for 10 million followers of a being called the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- and demanded equal time for their views.
"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it," Henderson wrote. As for scientific evidence to the contrary, "what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage."
x.html
You know me: I think one can prove the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster about as well as the Judeo Xtian one. But it'll be interesting to see what religious scholars make of this.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I am Flying Spaghetti Monster agnostic.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm equivocal about Zeus myself. Some people have called me an Azeusist, but I think that's going too far!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wonder, what does a fundamentalist Spaghetti Monster follower look like?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Slobbering drunk and dressed like a pirate at a strip bar.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Were I forced to choose a deity, FSM would be right up there.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know me: I think one can prove the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster about as well as the Judeo Xtian one. But it'll be interesting to see what religious scholars make of this.
well, although ive been gone awhile.. its nice to see that a faith in God will still come under attack regularly. my question is SIg.. you arent referring to Jesus are you? history has thoroughly and legitimately established, at the very least, his existence. we can debate about the authenticity of his accounts... but for the sake of argument, lets allow recorded history to speak for itself. as far as i know.. spaghetti monster-ism, or anything even comically tangibly related, has come nowhere near as close to changing the face of an entire region(or the world), or forever creating a new philosophy disseminating mans relationship to creation, and thereby its CREATOR. 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. maybe i should instead be conjuring up unfounded theoretical concepts pertaining to proteins, and their ability to effectively blue-print and design fully functional biological systems from scratch(as the colleges are teaching); perhaps that may improve my perception of reality?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey Anti, welcome back; hope life has been treating you fairly.
Originally posted by antimason:
... maybe i should instead be conjuring up unfounded theoretical concepts pertaining to proteins, and their ability to effectively blue-print and design fully functional biological systems from scratch(as the colleges are teaching); perhaps that may improve my perception of reality?
As you know, you are 'selling' to a pretty tough crowd here. You reference historical precedent, etc. You may not have 'read back' some of the more recent appends, but SixString is not even willing to grant validity to any historical text beyond the range of his cognizant perception; and then only accepts what he can verify. This covers anything, not just religion; which makes it difficult for me to know how to comment to some of his observations. Personally, I -don't- know how to deal with that.
I know Sig can and will speak for himself; so just to level set.
Personally, I have no doubt as to Jesus' existence as a human, and as a 'radical' philosopher of his time. And by radical, I mean nothing more than someone whose thoughts were coming up against a status quo; and a status quo I believe needed a radical 'bump in the head.'
I know I quipped earlier I was a FSM agnostic; and I won't say I lied, but I was kidding. In all seriousness I'm FSM atheistic (technically, not the right word; but I'm sure you will get the drift).
One thing I do not like about FSM as an educational tool is it goes 'too far' the other way. Clearly FSM is a strawman constructed in whole for the purpose of making a point. Unfortunately, unless one is careful, one can actually cause an impressionable person to 'shut down' from the opposite perspective, and give no credence to the historical Jesus... or the historical Ghandi or the historical Buddha.
Fact: I will never learn an important life lesson from the 'historical' FSM (perhaps from it's 'adherents' but not from FSM).
Fact: I have learned important life lessons from each of the historical figures I listed above.
A phrase that comes to mind is "Do not throw the baby out with the bath water."
Edit: (sorry, forgot the 'original goal' of my post... picking up.)
Having said that, I believe you would actually weaken your position and play exactly into the fallacious reasoning of the FSM 'advocates' if you start deliberately pushing out 'unfounded theoretical concepts.' The problem is we can probably scientifically disprove such positions; thus by association it weakens your religious arguments. I would suggest you take a different tack.
====
Please vote for Firefly hourly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html
Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Leadb-
Hey Anti, welcome back; hope life has been treating you fairly.
hey thanks Lead; i hope the same for you. i have been quite busy lately, so i appreciate the acknowledgement of my absence
Quote:
Personally, I have no doubt as to Jesus' existence as a human, and as a 'radical' philosopher of his time.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
Quote:Ok, I don't mind the occasional Ad Hominem, it is sometimes necessary.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:I asked how it was a strawman. This isn't an argument. 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?
A strawman argument is one you can tell by the logical construction of the agument, you don't need to know about the motivations of the source. 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.
I've been trying to find a way to put into concrete terms the difference between merely being wrong, and putting up a deliberately false argument; and perhaps strawman is the wrong technical term. For the example below, I've chosen something 'provable' to make my point; unfortunately in the case of the FSM vs Abrahamic god we don't have that luxury.
I have persona A and person B.
Person B walks up to a yellow sign, and says 'This sign is green.' I see the sign is yellow; I observe this to the person, and he says, 'Nope, it is green!'. I find this interesting and ponder it.
Person A walks up to a red sign, and says 'This sign is purple.' I see the sign is red; I observe this to the person, and he says, 'Nope, it is purple!'. I hook him up to a lie detector, and sure enough, it shows he's telling the truth.
I hunt down person B. I hook him up to a lie detector, and sure enough, it shows he's lying. I ask why he's lying, he says "I'm so sick of that person A claiming the stops signs are purple, I just wanted to show you how wrong he is about calling those stop signs purple by calling these signs green."
Frankly, the FSM are person B. They are lying; they know they are lying. They know I know they are lying. I appreciate they are trying to 'make a point.' They are lying about the FSM. Simply because they are lying, does not mean the folks supporting Abrahamic god are lying. It also doesn't mean they are presenting a position which reflects reality; however, I will -not- say they are person A in the above analogy. That is equally unfair. I will say that the position existence of the Abrahamic God is 'indeterminate.'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What I think you're doing is judging what yout think is the 'internal' quality of the belief as opposed to its expression.
I could probably point out many who claim to believe in an Abrahamic god who are merely using a culturally acceptable belief to advance their own agenda (Cheney comes to mind). Yet that doesn't detract from the overall 'quality' you assign to the belief. OTOH there are probably at least a few people who have chosen the FSM for real belief. Yet that doesn't improve the overall quality of the belief in your mind.
Personally, I think that the origins are irrelevant. What counts is the belief quality, and as long as there are people who claim to believe, it is a real belief system. IMHO.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
I'm sure if I challenge those FSM'ers, they will hold to their statement of belief as firmly as any Christian; but it does not change the fact the FSM'ers are lying, IMHO.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It appears you got to me before my edit, sorry.
Originally posted by leadb:
Ok, I don't mind the occasional Ad Hominem, it is sometimes necessary.
Anyway, what you've actually done is strawman the FSM argument. The FSM was not brought about to argue against religion, or to highlight the 'lie of god' or anything the like. It was constructed to be an argument as equally logically and scientifically valid as any religion, and to say "if you want to teach Christian creation in science class, you have to teach any creation myth because they're all equally valid".
The arguments for the colour of the signs are both equally valid, they have the same amount of logical and evidential basis, the arguments are equally valid and it really doesn't matter that one person knows they're lying and the other thinks they're telling the truth. To put it another way, if I have a problem that makes me perceive the sky as red, yet say "the sky is blue", and another person who perceives it as blue says "the sky is blue", what makes the statements themselves different? Why is the sentence "the sky is blue" different from the sentence "the sky is blue", because of my motivations? They're not, the validity of the statement is independent of the person making it.
The thing about an Ad Hominem is that it is a logical fallacy, just like a strawman, and so is always an invalid argument. It doesn't matter why the originators constructed the argument.
How do you know the people who started the Christian religion were on the level? Does the arguments for god change if Pope Paul or Jesus were lying through their teeth or believed every word they said? No, because the motivations of the source are irrelevant to the validity of the argument. At the end of the day, you can't say for certain that the origins of the Christian religion are any more concrete than the FSMs, just further removed in history.
To boil it down significantly, you've got one group that says there's an invisible intelligent god that created the universe, and another group says that there is an invisible intelligent creator that created the universe. I see no difference in the fundamentals of the two positions, and find the motivations of both to be entirely irrelevant.
To summarise (because I feel I've gotten a little too 'stream of conciousness'):
Saying the FSM is invalid because it's proponents are 'lying and know it', is as valid, or invalid, as me refuting Christianity because I think the Catholic Church is lying.
Edited to add summary.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But that's as valid a thing to say as "all Christians are lying, and don't really believe in god".
Originally posted by leadb:
Rue,
I'm sure if I challenge those FSM'ers, they will hold to their statement of belief as firmly as any Christian; but it does not change the fact the FSM'ers are lying, 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
Quote:You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'd like to finish my analogy above...
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:It appears you got to me before my edit, sorry.
Originally posted by leadb:
Ok, I don't mind the occasional Ad Hominem, it is sometimes necessary.
Anyway, what you've actually done is strawman the FSM argument. The FSM was not brought about to argue against religion, or to highlight the 'lie of god' or anything the like. It was constructed to be an argument as equally logically and scientifically valid as any religion, and to say "if you want to teach Christian creation in science class, you have to teach any creation myth because they're all equally valid".
...
To summarise (because I feel I've gotten a little too 'stream of conciousness'):
Saying the FSM is invalid because it's proponents are 'lying and know it', is as valid, or invalid, as me refuting Christianity because I think the Catholic Church is lying.
Edited to add summary.
Here's one reason I didn't claim the Abrahamic believers are person A.
Turns out that I and person B only have 'average' color vision. The town in question bought a bunch of cheap chinese stop signs, and the paint they used actually tests 'purplish' when put through testing with rather expensive equipement. Thus Person B was in fact correct in his assertion the signs were purple. He just happens to have 'superior' color vision. Without this persons' vigilant instance in holding to his position, the cheap signs would never have been idenitified!
Point: When one takes as a legitimate position of those who are lying and compares it to a position which is presented by folks who are just trying to be has honest as possible, one can miss important truths. Hence, 'not equally invalid'.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm sorry, but characterising an Ad Hominem as a fatally flawed and invalid argument is not merely my 'opinion'. Your argument is as valid as me saying "Christians are lying". It doesn't address the actual issue, and merely tries to deflect it.
Originally posted by leadb:
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. I'd like to finish my analogy above...
Here's one reason I didn't claim the Abrahamic believers are person A.
Turns out that I and person B only have 'average' color vision. The town in question bought a bunch of cheap chinese stop signs, and the paint they used actually tests 'purplish' when put through testing with rather expensive equipement. Thus Person B was in fact correct in his assertion the signs were purple. He just happens to have 'superior' color vision. Without this persons' vigilant instance in holding to his position, the cheap signs would never have been idenitified!
Point: When one takes as a legitimate position of those who are lying and compares it to a position which is presented by folks who are just trying to be has honest as possible, one can miss important truths. Hence, 'not equally invalid'.
You're analogy could also end with Person B being correct and Person A being wrong. Point: The motivations of the arguer do not change the validity of their argument.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:BTW, I'm not talking about motivations of people, or anything else. Merely the logical validity of the two arguments, and they're both equally logically valid. The merits of arguers do not determine the logical validity of an argument, the merits of the argument do. Who is making the argument, is not a merit of the argument itself.
Originally posted by leadb:
Hence, 'not equally invalid'.
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
Almost every religion in the world has a creation myth, some similar to the Christian one and some very different. You could argue that if one is valid in the classroom then they should all be, because deciding which one is "real" becomes a value judgement, not one that is based on any evidence one way or the other. I went to a C of E secondary school, I had 2 hours of mandated religious education every week. They actually took the time to teach a little comparative theology during that time not because Anglicans believe they are wrong but because if you believe you are right you don't fear other ideas.
Oh, and they taught evolution. Science is about explaining how the universe works, religion is about explaining why there is a universe at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Unless, of course, one person is lying, and the other person is telling the truth; but is able to perceive that which you cannot.
Originally posted by citizen:
You're analogy could also end with Person B being correct and Person A being wrong. Point: The motivations of the arguer do not change the validity of their argument.
Your point is probably 'but I can't tell who is lying and who is telling the truth.' I understand.
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb: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...
What do you perceive that price to be, though? I'm asking in all honesty. I don't see one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's more believable than Scientology, which itself was started only to make Ron L Hubbard money. Yet apparrently that's a real religion.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
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.
But back to it, you can agree with leadb that its all a joke as much as you like, but condemning the argument based on the motivations of the source is an Ad Hominem. All I'm doing is looking at the two arguments on merit, not on my estimation of the motivations of the sources. They're logical merits are identical, and Ad Hominems always have been, and always will be, an invalid argument. How would you like it if you made an argument, and I said "But you don't mean it so your argument is bollocks". It's not a refutation, it's a cop out.
Beyond that, who are you think to tell other people what they believe and what they don't? Leadb seems to be suggesting that he can always say a 'pastafarian' is lying. Personally I think if you can say "all pastafarians are lying", I can say "All Christians are lying". I have no right to tell anyone else what they believe, and neither does anyone else.
Also, where did I say they should be seen the same on an individual level? I said the aruments are logically equivelent, not that individuals have to believe the FSM if they believe in Christianity, or any other such thing. Where anyone could get that idea is utterly beyond me.
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 agree with Citizen.
Whilst it may be true that the FSM was created as a sarcastic comparison to the belief in the Lord or any other faith, now that it has been created, one cannot disprove this theory any more than one can disprove the Creationist theory. The fact is that this could be true, even if the source doesn't believe it himself (he may have hit on the truth unintentionally; no one can prove to the contrary), so it is just as valid or invalid as the theory of the one God.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Believe me, I'm with you on that! If we're going with logic, which every government official and schoolboard member and classroom textbook writer should, any system of beliefs is equal to any other. All are based on blind faith, and therefore are not provable. Not a single one has a place in the science curriculum. Period.
Originally posted by SpaceHopper:
so it is just as valid or invalid as the theory of the one God.
But here's the thing - religion is not about logic. And don't bust my balls (if I had them) over this - I'm as logical as they come. Scientist here. Atheist. Hardcore. See my posts here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29741
But I think you're stretching it to ask someone who's grown up with the Bible to honor the FSM the same way they honor the One True God, as they see it. I mean, we all know that a physics grad student (figuratively) stood in front of the Kansas school board and created the myth of the FSM. And those of us (me included) who are emotionally removed from the matter might very well say that this physics grad student is going to be the next Muhammad, once things die done and the exact nature of the beginning of FSM is forgotten. Just like the details of the life of Jesus had been forgotten when the Bible was written 200 years after he died. (Personally, I think the next deity will be Elvis. Seriously!)
Again though - personal beliefs are not about logic. Now, schoolboard rulings as to curriculum are about logic, but leadb's personal beliefs are not, and who the hell are we to say they should be? As long as he's not telling us that we must study creationism, which I don't believe he is.
Yes, creationism is BS. That's pretty clear. I'm not arguing for that at all. I'm just saying that maybe we oughta have some empathy towards those who've grown up with a system of beliefs, whose life experience has given that system meaning that goes beyond a letter written by a physics grad student.
And let me talk about the weight of history a minute...
Things that exist a long time have weight, and that defies logic. For example: I think in basic truths and personalities my parents aren't real compatible. But they've survived 40 years of marriage, and they've seen things of each other that no one else has or ever will. That gives their relationship something pretty damned special, and makes it more solid than any bluebirds and sparkles love at first site short-lived romance.
As much as I hate (and yes - I do mean HATE) a lot of what the Bible spews, I respect that it has a weight in some people's lives that defies whatever weak, pathetic roots the book might have, or how many insane passages there are about women sleeping with sheep and such. This thing has been in people's lives, it has carried them through horrible times and given them hope. That has weight.
Myself, I'd prefer if organized religion faded away completely, and if any schoolboard ever tells me I have to teach creationism but must never mention our almighty savior the Pasta Head, I'll by carrying signs and sending hate mail to the right-wing religous idiots. Creationism is bullshit, pure and simple. But I think this thread is toeing a line beyond that.
No matter the roots and fallacies of it, Christianity has more history, and more weight, than some 2 year old goofiness, no matter how clever and logically reasoned out FSM is.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Which is all I've been trying to point out throughout
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Believe me, I'm with you on that! If we're going with logic, which every government official and schoolboard member and classroom textbook writer should, any system of beliefs is equal to any other. All are based on blind faith, and therefore are not provable. Not a single one has a place in the science curriculum. Period.
.Quote:There's nothing wrong with that, but religion's illogical nature is one reason why it's not science, and if the religious want it in Science class they're going to have to let anything in science class. As far as Scientific and Logical proofs for God go, they're as relevant and equivalent to my instance that I have an invisible friend named Harvey.
But here's the thing - religion is not about logic. And don't bust my balls (if I had them) over this - I'm as logical as they come. Scientist here. Atheist. Hardcore. See my posts here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=29741
Quote:No one's asking them to believe in the FSM, but if they want to have their own beliefs respected, they'll have to do the same for other peoples proposed beliefs, even if they think them silly. Because, really when you look at it, belief in god is a little logically silly. Ignoring one's own thoughts feelings and beliefs for a moment, stepping back and looking at both Christianity and the FSM on their merits, they both look equally silly, and require the same leaps of logic to believe.
But I think you're stretching it to ask someone who's grown up with the Bible to honor the FSM the same way they honor the One True God, as they see it.
If a follower of Christianity can't let the FSMers do their own thing without getting upset, I fail to see how they'll be able to let Buddhists or Hindus do they're own thing, because those religions must look silly from outside too no? If they can't let other beliefs slide, even if they think they're silly and made up, why should theirs be respected? Because really, if your a Christian, yours is the true faith isn't it, therefore other peoples faith must be silly and made up.
Quote:Who's telling leadb what his beliefs are? The only time I saw anyone telling anyone what their beliefs are, was when leadb said all 'pastafarians' were lier's.
Again though - personal beliefs are not about logic. Now, schoolboard rulings as to curriculum are about logic, but leadb's personal beliefs are not, and who the hell are we to say they should be? As long as he's not telling us that we must study creationism, which I don't believe he is.
Quote:But to a Christian, they're belief will have more meaning than a book written by Muhammed, or the Bhagavad-Gītā, but why I should have empathy for Christians because Muslims and Hindus exist is beyond me. If they find the existence of other religions, even the parody insulting, how can they expect respect for their own beliefs?
Yes, creationism is BS. That's pretty clear. I'm not arguing for that at all. I'm just saying that maybe we oughta have some empathy towards those who've grown up with a system of beliefs, whose life experience has given that system meaning that goes beyond a letter written by a physics grad student.
Quote:Not in a logical argument, where that would be called a logical fallacy as an appeal to tradition.
And let me talk about the weight of history a minute...
Things that exist a long time have weight, and that defies logic.
Quote:It only has more weight to the believers of Christianity, it has no more logical worth, even if it was a million years old. But it will always have more weight than other beliefs to its believers. You're argument invites the conclusion that Christianity has more weight than Islam, wh
No matter the roots and fallacies of it, Christianity has more history, and more weight, than some 2 year old goofiness, no matter how clever and logically reasoned out FSM is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen, I agree with everything in your last post. Like I said myself, in the debate over creationism taught in schools, the FSM and creationism are equal. Equally unfounded in reality. OK, can we check that off as done now, and quit trying to convince each other of it?
This is where the thread went into a gray area for me:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:But that's as valid a thing to say as "all Christians are lying, and don't really believe in god".
Originally posted by leadb:
I'm sure if I challenge those FSM'ers, they will hold to their statement of belief as firmly as any Christian; but it does not change the fact the FSM'ers are lying, IMHO.
Not so. If you take a lie detector test to folks on both sides, guess how many creationists would pass as truly believing in their Creator? A lot more than FSM-ers who truly believe in the Noodly King. The Bible myth has had time to become personal, and a person's belief is more than logic. Of course, as you say I can't see into people's heads and until I get my own lie detector I'm only hand-waving here. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that more folks believe in God than believe in the FSM.
But that's not really my point. What's my point? Hmm. Something about different mentalities...
OK, I think we could make 4 groups here:
1. People who believe in the principle behind FSM, that all belief systems are (il)-logically equal and public policy should be set accordingly, but don't really think there's an actual pasta king running the show.
2. People who believe that the FSM is real, from eyeball to every loving noodly stub, and FSM-ism should be taught because it is the truth.
3. People who believe in the principles behind the Bible, like Love Thy Neighbor and Don't Sin and Do Unto Others and such, but don't really think there's an old man in robes who made the world in 7 days.
4. People who believe that the Bible God is real, and creationism should be taught because it is the truth. (And damn the evidence to the contrary LOL!)
I argue that 1 and 3 are similar mentalities, as are 2 and 4. Further, I think the majority of the people taking part in the FSM debate fall into 1 and 4.
I gently posit that both leadb and you are not making a distinction between 1 and 2. To leadb, FSM-ers are lying every time we bring up the FSM, because he may think we are arguing for the existence of this silly deity, and not the principle behind it. The thing that bugged me about this thread is that you seemed to be playing into that, and placing yourself in group 2. Which effectively takes you down to the dogmatic level of those in group 4, and loses sight of the whole point.
1 versus 4 is a stronger and more useful debate than 2 versus 4, is all I'm saying. (I think people in 3 probably line up pretty well with those in 1, btw.)
(edited for clarity)
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I knew I should have ducked after that last post.
Quote:Then do so; but be prepared to pay the price (ref: means and ends thread).
Originally posted by citizen:
Leadb seems to be suggesting that he can always say a 'pastafarian' is lying. Personally I think if you can say "all pastafarians are lying", I can say "All Christians are lying".
Quote:I don't tell them what to believe; I am calling a spade a spade. Big difference.
I have no right to tell anyone else what they believe, and neither does anyone else.
Someone above asked 'what's the price'. I'll quote Cit again "It's more believable than Scientology," Unfortunately, he's right. One of the possible prices we may pay is folks actually believing this at some point. At which time, I will have to change my position to 'It originated with a lie.'
A second possible cost is uniting the various Christians sects to 'fight back' against this 'argument'. At the moment, the fundamentalists are a bit 'out on the end of a branch' busy sawing away at the end closer to the tree. You tick enough folks off, and they just might come in to the defense of the very practice you all are trying to discourage.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal said: " Citizen, I agree with everything in your last post. Like I said myself, in the debate over creationism taught in schools, the FSM and creationism are equal. Equally unfounded in reality."
With this part... "in the debate over creationism taught in schools, the FSM and creationism are equal. Equally unfounded in reality."
Also agreed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I am not a religious scholar, but I am religious. I believe in Jesus/Intelligent Design, AND I subscribe to the evolutionary theory (albeit not in the conventional way).
Having said that, I cannot see how teaching any religion, be it Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Zen, Intelligent Design, or the FSM has any place in a public school funded by taxpayers.
Science class should be for teaching the scientific method and the consensus of the body of knowledge gathered by the scientific method. Not everything we believe we know in the scientific community is correct or true, but our children need to know what most people believe, even if they choose to personally disagree.
For example, my kid is learning about HIV as the cause of AIDS and global warming. I personally subscribe to neither of those theories, but I teach it to her because she needs to know what other people are talking about. That is what science class is for. Then, parents at home can present alternative theories/explanations (if they wish) to help the child arrive at his/her own conclusion.
That's my opinion anyway.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky 
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For example, my kid is learning about HIV as the cause of AIDS...
Huh? What alternate theory is there?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
For example, my kid is learning about HIV as the cause of AIDS...
StoryMark
Huh? What alternate theory is there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder, too.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
For example, my kid is learning about HIV as the cause of AIDS...
Huh? What alternate theory is there?
First, let me clarify that with HIV/AIDS, I personally have no alternative theory. I simply believe there are unanswered questions that have been dismissed simply because authorities feel they already KNOW the cause of AIDS. For example, I think there is evidence that HIV might be a co-factor as opposed to being the sole cause. I also think it is disingenuous to define AIDS as an HIV infection, when others with AIDS symptoms but no HIV antibodies are diagnosed with something else. There is just a lot of sloppy science in this field that cannot justify automatic and total acceptance of the HIV/AIDS link.
Here are a couple of links to "AIDS dissidents." The most famous of the dissidents is Peter Duesberg. Now I don't agree with everything he says, but he does raise some good questions.
http://rethinkingaids.com/
http://www.duesberg.com/
http://virusmyth.net/aids/
http://www.aliveandwell.org/
http://www.orgonelab.org/hiv_aids.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just an interjection here: HIV IS the cause of AIDS- in those who are susceptible. To others who are exposed, it is not.
Chrisisall, PhDuh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I went to every link and found not one 'compelling' or even mildly interesting claim.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But anyway, not to get too sidetracked ... I think the reason why LeadB finds the FSM insulting to x-tians is that he sees it as a parody, not as a logical argument. Though if you see it as a parody, it could be a parody of any religion.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You mean a claim that there is another cause? Well, I don't believe there is another cause of it.
Originally posted by rue:
I went to every link and found not one 'compelling' or even mildly interesting claim.
But one thing's for sure; it's man-made. An accident to be sure, but our doing nonetheless. Just like the anti-biotic resistant colds these days.
We play God and resent the price Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, well, Buddhists eat the most noodles, so I'd say it was aimed at us....
Originally posted by rue:
But anyway, not to get too sidetracked ... I think the reason why LeadB finds the FSM insulting to x-tians is that he sees it as a parody, not as a logical argument. Though if you see it as a parody, it could be a parody of any religion.
Noodly Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really ? Rice noodles ? Like those wide ones you get in Thai restaurants ?
MMMMmmmmmmmhhhhh ... nnoooooodles
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
MMMMmmmmmmmhhhhh ... nnoooooodles
Buddha bless you Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Erm, HIV destroys the immune system, eventually leading to the condition called AIDS. That AIDS like syndromes (essentially loss of the immune system) can be found from other causes, doesn't mean HIV doesn't cause it. Radiation Sickness can destroy the immune system, that's AIDS like symptoms right there.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
First, let me clarify that with HIV/AIDS, I personally have no alternative theory. I simply believe there are unanswered questions that have been dismissed simply because authorities feel they already KNOW the cause of AIDS. For example, I think there is evidence that HIV might be a co-factor as opposed to being the sole cause.
But to say that casts doubt on HIV as a cause of AIDS? To me that sounds like suggesting the Flu is a co-factor in a sore throat, because you get one with Tonsillitis?
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:Ugh. Allow me to clarify.
Originally posted by citizen:
Erm, HIV destroys the immune system, eventually leading to the condition called AIDS.
I believe there is evidence to suggest HIV may only be a co-factor in destroying the immune system, leading to the condition called AIDS. Meaning HIV may not be working alone. For example, the prolific presence of HHV-6 in AIDS patients has not been well investigated as a possible alternative cause or co-factor of immune dysfunction in these patients, because HIV is already blamed.
It is like cops who have a suspect stop looking for other suspects, even though there is some evidence that this suspect may have had accomplices.
Quote:My doubt is on whether HIV is the ONLY cause of AIDS. No one claims that the flu is the ONLY cause of sore throat. But authorities claim that HIV is the only cause of AIDS. Now if you show me an authority who says AIDS has many different causes, among them HIV, then I will rephrase my doubts more precisely.
But to say that casts doubt on HIV as a cause of AIDS? To me that sounds like suggesting the Flu is a co-factor in a sore throat, because you get one with Tonsillitis?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Aude sapere (Dare to know). -- Samuel Hahnemann, M.D.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.urmc.edu/smd/mbi/education/courses/MBI456files/HV123-07-not
es.pdf
HHV-6. HHV-6 causes roseola (exanthem subitum) in infants and infects almost all (>90%) of children by age 3.
But since these children don't get AIDS until infected with the HIV, it would be illogical to say that HHV-6 is the 'cause' of AIDS. The sites you linked very strenuously objected to the HIV as being the cause of AIDS.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We will return back to our regularly scheduled program.
Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I find vague hand waving at an experiment no one has performed, and wouldn't be all that conclusive if they did (lie detectors are notoriously inaccurate), a wholly unconvincing argument. If we crucify them, how many would rise from the dead?
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Not so. If you take a lie detector test to folks on both sides, guess how many creationists would pass as truly believing in their Creator? A lot more than FSM-ers who truly believe in the Noodly King.
Quote:Maybe, but number of true believers is not a value judgement of religion. Unless you think Christianity is more of a religion than Buddhism or Hinduism. If you can't apply the argument equally, it's no argument at all. The argument doesn't work for religions with fewer followers than Christianity, so it doesn't work to debunk FSM as a religion. If it debunks FSM, it has to be able to debunk any religion, other wise you're just operating on confirmation bias.
The Bible myth has had time to become personal, and a person's belief is more than logic. Of course, as you say I can't see into people's heads and until I get my own lie detector I'm only hand-waving here. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that more folks believe in God than believe in the FSM.
An analogy would be antiques. One person will throw out an old radio as junk, another will pick it up and lovingly restore it because they see it as valuable. The person who threw it out, meanwhile, has spent they're time collecting antique bottle caps. You can't turn around and say the bottle cap collector is a wrong because they threw out an antique radio, but imbue bottle caps with value, or vice versa. The value of the belief is to the believer, and has nothing to do with age or the number of other believers. It's not for you to tell someone their belief is a lie (even if it is), nor that another belief is worth more than theirs, even if in your estimation it is. So saying "FSMers are lying", and "Christians are lying" are identical sentences, because they're both telling other people what they believe, and no matter what you think of their beliefs, you haven't the right. Outside that, talking about ages and number of true believers, is nothing more than a rationalisation.
Quote:Thats a rather gross over simplification, and quite misleading. Either people don't really believe, but think they have some good ideas, or their Evangelical/Fundamentalist. What happened to the shades of grey in between?
OK, I think we could make 4 groups here:
Quote:Firstly I reject the false dichotomy of your groupings, but secondly that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the only people that can make the distinction between true belief and fake belief is the believer him/herself. You don't have the right to tell them which 'group' they fit in, neither do I or leadb. Indeed, what group they really fit in is entirely irrelevant.
I gently posit that both leadb and you are not making a distinction between 1 and 2. To leadb, FSM-ers are lying every time we bring up the FSM, because he may think we are arguing for the existence of this silly deity, and not the principle behind it. The thing that bugged me about this thread is that you seemed to be playing into that, and placing yourself in group 2. Which effectively takes you down to the dogmatic level of those in group 4, and loses sight of the whole point.
To put it in refrence to your groupings, it seems to me leadb is making the blanket statement that 1 is all there is, and that he has the right to make that statement in the name of "calling a spade a spade". I'm saying that we have no right to place people in either 1 or 2, only they have the right to place themselves in either catagory.
Quote:No, there isn't. It's very easy to say, but doesn't mean it's true. You're estimation of someone else's belief is not better than theirs, you are not the final arbiter
Originally posted by leadb:
I don't tell them what to believe; I am calling a spade a spade. Big difference.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point about FSM is that it's an obsurd analogue of any religion. IF you say "religion X's creation myth should be taught in school" then why would you not teach religion Y's myths too and if you include religion Y then why not all the others?
Why should religion X be "special?" Of course the believers of religion X think it's the one true faith, that's obvious, they could hardly be believers and think otherwise but in a society where they do not form 100% of the population is it right that their view should have prominence over any other?
In the US they took a specific approach which is to basically give no religion prominence, which is a good thing I cant see why anyone would view that as being anything but amicable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess we disagree. I believe it is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary, to state when someone is, to the best of one's assessment, lying. Clearly, you think it is ok to just lean back and accept the lie. To each his own.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I don't tell them what to believe; I am calling a spade a spade. Big difference.
No, there isn't. It's very easy to say, but doesn't mean it's true. You're estimation of someone else's belief is not better than theirs, you are not the final arbiter of belief, and you don't get to say “you don't believe what you say you do” and pass it off as calling a spade a spade.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I think it's fine when someone is lying about facts or figures, but when it's something specific and deeply personal about themselves, I don't think I have the right to tell other people how they think and feel about things. They know what they believe, you do not. Casting yourself as the final arbiter of other peoples beliefs, seems to me to be hubris.
Originally posted by leadb:
I guess we disagree. I believe it is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary, to state when someone is, to the best of one's assessment, lying. Clearly, you think it is ok to just lean back and accept the lie. To each his own.
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
ahem Tries to politely join the conversation.
LeadB, you seem to take a strong personal exception (1) to FSM and the people who profess it. Earlier I posted that I thought it was b/c you saw them as a parody of Christianity (2).
(1) True and (2) true ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It would be, but you see, I'm not. I'm not claiming to be the final arbiter of their belief, I am merely observing the words they are uttering are lies. That is the difference.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:No, I think it's fine when someone is lying about facts or figures, but when it's something specific and deeply personal about themselves, I don't think I have the right to tell other people how they think and feel about things. They know what they believe, you do not. Casting yourself as the final arbiter of other peoples beliefs, seems to me to be hubris.
Originally posted by leadb:
I guess we disagree. I believe it is acceptable, and sometimes even necessary, to state when someone is, to the best of one's assessment, lying. Clearly, you think it is ok to just lean back and accept the lie. To each his own.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ahem Tries to politely join the conversation.
LeadB, you seem to take a strong personal exception (1) to FSM and the people who profess it. Earlier I posted that I thought it was b/c you saw them as a parody of Christianity (2).
(1) True and (2) true ?
1) I'm not sure how to answer your question. Let's hope I hit it. I do not take personal offense from FSM; it neither attacks me, nor my beliefs. I will say I understand how folks would be offended, and not necessarily just the radical fundamentalists which Cit indicates.
I do not take -strong- exception to the people who profess it; I understand they have an objective; and I do not agree with the method. I believe they are lying; and have no qualms so asserting. Apparently, Cit thinks I'm going to offend the FSM'ers' or something else terrible is going to happen for me calling them on the carpet.
2) The problem is that I see people going to school boards and professing a faith in FSM for the purpose of affecting policy; namely to have their faith included in the science section if creationism is going to be permitted; in such a circumstance, I believe it will only muddy the waters to profess a faith so publicly for such purpose. I believe people will feel mocked.
As stated previously, I believe a better tactic is to attack the -science- of ID. It has the advantage of being true, and thus does not bear some of the problems of the FSM approach.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're making the sweeping statement that they're all liars, based on nothing more than the fact that you've decided that's the case. Rationalise it as you wish, but what you're doing is saying "when they say they believe something, they're lying", you don't know what they believe, you're not them, and you're not in their head.
Originally posted by leadb:
It would be, but you see, I'm not. I'm not claiming to be the final arbiter of their belief, I am merely observing the words they are uttering are lies. That is the difference.
You don't have the right to make sweeping statements about which beliefs can be taken on face value, and which can automatically called lies. If someone says they believe something, you have no right to call them a liar, even if you know for certain their belief is just a joke.
You debunked your own position in an earlier post, with the stop sign thing. You can't make sweeping statements that someone else sees things the way you do. Even if, as far as your concerned, it's just calling a spade a spade.
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
Completely re-editted.
Quote:I am observing the universe and making a judgment call. I suspect I will be disappointing you in this regard.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:You're making the sweeping statement that they're all liars, based on nothing more than the fact that you've decided that's the case. Rationalise it as you wish, but what you're doing is saying "when they say they believe something, they're lying", you don't know what they believe, you're not them, and you're not in their head.
Originally posted by leadb:
It would be, but you see, I'm not. I'm not claiming to be the final arbiter of their belief, I am merely observing the words they are uttering are lies. That is the difference.
Quote:I believe I have the right to speak the truth. The sad part, is if I'm wrong, then the worst 'price' of what I said was bad about this has come to pass; a genuine believer has taken root from what was intended only to be an execize in logic to prevent creationism from being taught in school. I warned you there would be possibly a heavy price to pay from this tactic.
You don't have the right to make sweeping statements about which beliefs can be taken on face value, and which can automatically called lies.
Quote:I disagree. If I know for certain that it is a joke, then I certainly do have the right to call statements which profess that which is not true to be lies.
If someone says they believe something, you have no right to call them a liar, even if you know for certain their belief is just a joke.
Quote:No, you declared victory and moved on. If you re-read carefully you will see your position is not supportable. Feel free to try to defend it.
You debunked your own position in an earlier post, with the stop sign thing.
Quote:I made no claim that some see things the way I do or not, I merely said the words they were expressing were lies
You can't make sweeping statements that someone else sees things the way you do.
Quote:
Even if, as far as your concerned, it's just calling a spade a spade.NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're making objective sweeping statements based on nothing more than you're own subjective belief. Rationalise your bias as you wish.
Originally posted by leadb:
I am observing the universe and making a judgment call. I suspect I will be disappointing you in this regard.
Quote:So if I truly believed that Christianity wasn't a real belief I'd be able to say "All Christians are liars" and be able to qualify it in all the ways you are. Personally I think no one has the right to tell other people what they believe, you obviously think differently, though to make it more palletable you've covered it with a layer of confirmation bias. You're not really telling people what they believe, because they don't really believe it, because it's not a real belief, and if it's not a real belief, no one can really believe it, which means you can't be telling people what they believe...
I believe I have the right to speak the truth.
Quote:So people believing in the FSM is a heavy price? Personally I don't care what people believe, it's up to them, but if you hate the FSM that much that you think one person actually believing in it is a heavy price, well kinda confirms what I've been saying.
I warned you there would be possibly a heavy price to pay from this tactic.
Quote:You don't know for certain, it's pure arrogance to presume you know for certain what another person believes. The same rationalisation also means I can say "all Christians are liars" as long as I really believe it, which just goes to support what I said earlier, that the two sentences are equivalent.
I disagree. If I know for certain that it is a joke, then I certainly do have the right to call statements which profess that which is not true to be lies.
Quote:This isn't a refutation of what I said, it's a red herring. However the only person "declaring victory" and moving on here is you, with your "Your position is not supportable" crap. If you actually read what has been said on both sides, you should realise that you're circular logic feeding off of a preconceived bias, is just a house of cards. If you look carefully at what I've been saying, it's that no one knows the contents of another persons head, and has no right to presume that they do. What particular part of that is unsupportable? The part where it doesn't play into your idea that you have the final say on what is and what is not a belief?
No, you declared victory and moved on. If you re-read carefully you will see your position is not supportable. Feel free to try to defend it.
I'm sure Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc. are breathing a big sigh of relief that you have arbitrarily decided that their beliefs are real ones, so that they can say "I believe" without the final arbiter of belief coming down and saying "No you don't, LIAR!".
Quote:Accept it or not, that is exactly what you're doing. You've decided (arbitrarily) that FSM isn't a belief for anyone, and that furthermore anyone who says they do believe in it is a liar. How they see things doesn't work into your equation, you've decided what they're doing, and how they see it, based only on your perception, and your forcing your perception on other people.
I made no claim that some see things the way I do or not, I merely said the words they were expressing were lies
EDIT:
Look, I don't want to come across as if I'm calling you a bigot or something, and it seems we're talking cross wires. I'm not talking about the specific case of the FSM, I'm talking about general belief. I'm saying that if someone says "I believe X" no one else has the right to say "no you don't". You can disagree with their belief, you can think it's stupid, if you don't mind being insulting you can tell them they're believing a lie, but you catagorically CANNOT say that they're statement "I believe X" is a lie. The only evidence either way is locked up inside their grey matter, evidence you can have no possible access too. Even if you really really really think their
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We've round the wagons a few times already. You either do not understand what I'm saying, or you are deliberately trying to obscure it.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:So if I truly believed that Christianity wasn't a real belief I'd be able to say "All Christians are liars" and be able to qualify it in all the ways you are.
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe I have the right to speak the truth.
First, you can say or do anything you want; you merely have to be prepared to pay the consequences.
Second, if you believe that person X does not believe in Christianity; and X claims he does; and you have reason to believe X is lying (eg: he is known to solitict funds from empathetic people for poor children in Nigeria; but is really funding his private retirement island near Australia), then by all mean, call him a liar. Find me, and if you can convince me, I'll be right behind you.
Keep in mind you can call someone who professes belief in something a liar without challenging the validity of that which they are professing.
In the case of FSM, I believe this is a completely bogus religion created for the purpose of convincing school boards to not include ID in the school science books.
I believe those who are professing belief in the FSM are lying for the purpose of convincing folks such as the school boards to not include things such as ID in the school science books, in some cases as a simple lark, and in some cases, simply to upset other folks. You are welcome to disagree.
And yes, I personally consider it a tragedy if a single person becomes a genuine believer in the FSM because of this tactic. I appreciate that you do not; and this is at least one of our genuine differences. I am willing to consider this a point of disagreement that needs no further discussion.
While I appreciate your attempting to vest me with the title of arbiter, I must decline for personal reasons. If you would like the title, you are welcome to it. Otherwise, you are going to have find another for the title; but beware, generally those willing to accept the title are not worthy of it.
Finally, I have professed my beliefs above, and I resent you trying to stop me from professing my beliefs. You don't have the right to do it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can say the same of you. I can also say that I'm not sure you realise the implications of what you are saying.
Originally posted by leadb:
We've round the wagons a few times already. You either do not understand what I'm saying, or you are deliberately trying to obscure it.
Quote:Completely different thing. You're comparing calling one Christian a liar because they demonstrably do not follow the Christian faith (though that still doesn't prove they don't believe in it), to making a blanket statement for anyone that makes a certain statement.
Second, if you believe that person X does not believe in Christianity; and X claims he does; and you have reason to believe X is lying (eg: he is known to solitict funds from empathetic people for poor children in Nigeria; but is really funding his private retirement island near Australia), then by all mean, call him a liar. Find me, and if you can convince me, I'll be right behind you.
Quote:I said exactly this in my last post. I have no problem with people saying they disagree, or that someone's faith or belief is a lie, I have a problem with saying someone is lying about what they believe in, because you can't know, and you have no evidence to prove it. Not to mention it's just not your place to say.
Keep in mind you can call someone who professes belief in something a liar without challenging the validity of that which they are professing.
Quote:And if I said "You don't really believe that, you are a liar"? Its not my place to say whether you believe something or not, I have to take your statement of belief at face value.
In the case of FSM, I believe this is a completely bogus religion created for the purpose of convincing school boards to not include ID in the school science books.
Quote:Believe as you wish, it doesn't give you the right to then tell other people they are lying about their beliefs, based on your belief. What makes your statement of belief better than theirs? What if I said "I don't believe you really think that, you're a liar"? Hows that any different from what you've done? And how can I have the right to tell you with more authority what is in side your head?
I believe those who are professing belief in the FSM are lying for the purpose of convincing folks such as the school boards to not include things such as ID in the school science books, in some cases as a simple lark, and in some cases, simply to upset other folks. You are welcome to disagree.
Quote:Fair enough.
And yes, I personally consider it a tragedy if a single person becomes a genuine believer in the FSM because of this tactic. I appreciate that you do not; and this is at least one of our genuine differences. I am willing to consider this a point of disagreement that needs no further discussion.
Quote:So you're beliefs are better than theirs? You can't be stopped from 'professing' your beliefs, but you can prevent others from doing it? I can't say “You don't have the right to tell others what their beliefs are”, but I do have the right to say “Leadb, you don't really believe that, you're just trying to wind me up, you're a liar”?
Finally, I have professed my beliefs above, and I resent you trying to stop me from professing my beliefs. You don't have the right to do it.
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
Anti-Pasta Farians Unite!
Do you believe? Do you honestly believe? If so, you may declare yourself an Anti-Pasta Farian.
To make this claim, you need only profess the faith!
I believe the Pastafarian religion of the FSM is a completely bogus religion created for the purpose of convincing school boards to not include ID in the school science books.
I believe those who are professing belief in the FSM are lying for the purpose of convincing folks such as the school boards to not include things such as ID in the school science books, in some cases as a simple lark, and in some cases, simply to upset other folks.
If you believe as I do, join me! Join me now! There are those amoungst the population who would suppress us; we must resist. Fight now, or your right to speak your truth may be gone forever!
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!!!
LeadB,
President of APFL (Pronounced like apple, but with an F thrown in.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi !!!!
I'm DRAyKE.
I run the Baltimore BrownCoats fan club in....
Taaa... Daaaa....
Baltimore, Maryland !!!!
(Surprised?)
Anywho....
I scan the globe/net trying to find NEW info on Serenity/Firefly, so as to pass it on to my club.
Is there any news of a sequel?
WE had heard that Joss could not do any Serenity in the near future since he was doing "Wonder Woman"!
But WE have heard that, itis not happening now...
So...
Any plans for sequel?
(Echo...?)
Like we have been buying the DVDs like crazy over here.
What else can we DO!!!??:?
Mucho Thanks!!!
DRAyKE
She's disturbing my calm....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DRAyKe,
Welcome to the boards. You probably picked a poor thread to get serious dialog on the topics you mentioned... let me dig a second...
Edit:
Here's a 'particular' thing you can advocate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=20&t=31523
You will notice this is in a group of threads called
'Firefly and Serenity Guerilla Marketing'
and you can find other items on this topic.
If you want to talk about this kind of stuff, you will find the 'most' people in the threads under 'General Discussion'
You have started your thread in
'Real World Event Discussions'
where most folks discuss things like who is running for president, the impact of federal reserve actions on the value of the dollar, and some seriously controversial religious and science discussions. However, I personally will support your right to post anywhere!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thanks for sayin', sig. This is a key point. Can you see that leadb *is* talking about the FSM? As am I?
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not talking about the specific case of the FSM, I'm talking about general belief.
Sig, I don't post much so you don't know that I am a fan. I lurk and cheer you on most times, cause I like how you think and express yourself. But in this one you're being a tad overly stubborn, imho. In principle we all agree that all belief systems are equal in the eyes of the law. No one here is disputing the equality of ID and FSM in the eyes of logic and the law. But you're kinda forcing the idea where it's not needed. Staunching standing up for True Belief in the FSM (which, given the above quote, is not what you mean but is how the thread has come off to me) kinda makes you look foolish. Sorry, I mean it lovingly, but still...
I've just described this thread to my feminist activist atheist friends - one lawyer and one biological engineer - and they agree with me.
Edit: has anyone noticed that the tongue emotiguy isn't working lately? Is it just me?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
DRAyKe,
Welcome to the boards. You probably picked a poor thread to get serious dialog on the topics you mentioned... let me dig a second...
*****
Sorry...
Any idea on where I should be posting this?
Also my bad for not posting the
BALTIMORE BROWNCOATS
Site Addy!
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/baltimorebrowncoats/
Thanks,
DRAyKE
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal, you are saying 'Sig' which is generally 'Signy'; it has been mostly 'Cit' or Citizen who is 'contesting' my position; and so far Sig hasn't posted anything I'd quibble with in the least on this topic. I suspect you mean 'Cit'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No apologies necessary! Or consider it accepted, in any case.
Originally posted by DRAyKE:
Sorry...
Any idea on where I should be posting this?
Also my bad for not posting the
BALTIMORE BROWNCOATS
Site Addy!
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/baltimorebrowncoats/
Thanks,
DRAyKE
Start here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=20&t=31523
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But only if Anti-Pasta Farianism is a recognised belief by leadb
Originally posted by leadb:
Do you believe? Do you honestly believe? If so, you may declare yourself an Anti-Pasta Farian.
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Doesn't matter. I'm saying no one can tell anyone else what they're beliefs are, and that goes for any statement of "I believe X", which covers the FSM, if someone makes the statement "I believe in the FSM".
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote:Thanks for sayin', sig. This is a key point. Can you see that leadb *is* talking about the FSM? As am I?
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not talking about the specific case of the FSM, I'm talking about general belief.
I won't be drawn into a talk about the merits of a specific, because they're entirely irrelevant, and merely a rationalisation for deciding what is and what is not a belief. The only person that can decide if something is their belief is that person, not you, leadb, me or anyone else.
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. 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.
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 citizen:Quote:But only if Anti-Pasta Farianism is a recognised belief by leadb
Originally posted by leadb:
Do you believe? Do you honestly believe? If so, you may declare yourself an Anti-Pasta Farian.
Hmm. A winky face. I guess we ran this one into the ground, eh?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Probably, agree to disagree?
Originally posted by leadb:
Hmm. A winky face. I guess we ran this one into the ground, eh?
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:Aye. Thanks for giving me more to think about.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:Probably, agree to disagree?
Originally posted by leadb:
Hmm. A winky face. I guess we ran this one into the ground, eh?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apparently Citizen and I agree so thoroughly on this point we get confused with each other? Well, I have to say that I'm pleased as all punch to be taken for such an esteemed poster. I don't know about Citizen, tho!
Life has been crazy and I'll have to read back through the posts to see if I can add anything to the conversation. BTW- I DID try to find the proceedings of this conference to see if anything came up, but haven't been able to. It may take a month or so to publish, and it may never make it on-line, but I'll check.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, sorry to be a tail-end Charlie, but here's my take: a person can truly believe in something, or they can be merely professing to believe in something, but without evidence to support their beliefs their professed ideas are equally valid.
BTW- you'd be surprised what people can really believe in. All you have to do is look at past religions to know that people can be passionately and wholeheartedly pretty far "out there". But for a more current example: I was saying at work that believing in the Judeo-Xtian God was just about as sane as believing in an Easter bunny which lays chocolate eggs, and that very same day I found an article in the local newspaper about a man IN A BUNNY SUIT who was stalking a girl because God told him to. The line between sincere, baseless belief and delusion ... doesn't exist. IMHO. In fact, I prefer the tongue-in-cheek believer. 'cause at least I know they're not crazy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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...
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.
Quote: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.
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.
Quote: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.
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.
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 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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
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:Again, not doing that. Making some effort at understanding folk's state of mind is all. Why is this such a crime?
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.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote: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.
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?
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. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
Quote:Yeah, but you can't bring in the status of all FSMers as liars without questioning the common link.
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?
Quote:Theres a difference between saying "you're lying" and "everyone who says this is lying".
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?
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 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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME