And now for something completely different by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

And now for something completely different

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 09:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10789
PAGE 1 of 3

Friday, November 16, 2007 7:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

ZOUNDS!

Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster
Quote:
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."
www.cnn.com/2007/LIVING/personal/11/16/flying.spaghettimonster.ap/inde
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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 1:22 PM

LEADB

I am Flying Spaghetti Monster agnostic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 1:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 2:37 PM

STORYMARK

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 | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 3:00 PM

FREDGIBLET

Slobbering drunk and dressed like a pirate at a strip bar.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 5:27 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Were I forced to choose a deity, FSM would be right up there.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 16, 2007 11:32 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 5:40 AM

ANTIMASON

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 6:24 AM

LEADB

Quote:
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?

Hey Anti, welcome back; hope life has been treating you fairly.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 6:42 AM

ANTIMASON

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 6:47 AM

LEADB

Quote:
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

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The dratted double!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 8:11 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:46 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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

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).

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
... They are both as equally valid (or invalid, depending on how you look at it).

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:21 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
... They are both as equally valid (or invalid, depending on how you look at it).
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.

How is the fsm a strawman? An analogy perhaps, but it's not a strawman in any stretch of the word.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:44 AM

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?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:53 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:05 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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?

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?).

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:06 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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.

Exactly. The source of the argument is irrelivent to the validity of the argument.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:14 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
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?
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?).

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.

Ok, I don't mind the occasional Ad Hominem, it is sometimes necessary.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:33 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:40 AM

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:43 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Ok, I don't mind the occasional Ad Hominem, it is sometimes necessary.

It appears you got to me before my edit, sorry.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:47 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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.

But that's as valid a thing to say as "all Christians are lying, and don't really believe in god".

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:02 PM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Ok, I don't mind the occasional Ad Hominem, it is sometimes necessary.
It appears you got to me before my edit, sorry.

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.

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'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:11 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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'.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:34 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Hence, 'not equally invalid'.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:02 PM

FLETCH2

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:21 PM

LEADB

Quote:
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.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:02 PM

ALLIETHORN7

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!!!!!!!!!
My Master went to the Moon in a Rocket of Flamin' Cheese!
I LIKE CHEESE!!!
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:09 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 5:36 AM

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!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 5:46 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 6:01 AM

LEADB

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 6:46 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I've lost interest. I concede I'm making a value judgment; I've conceded it several times.

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?

Quote:
I believe that FSM approach is insulting to the Christian community, and is not the right way to approach the issue.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 11:03 AM

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 11:13 AM

AGENTROUKA

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 11:15 AM

LEADB

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
..so why...

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.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 11:34 AM

CHRISISALL

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 11:48 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
..so why...
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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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.

It's more believable than Scientology, which itself was started only to make Ron L Hubbard money. Yet apparrently that's a real religion.

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 1:28 PM

SPACEHOPPER

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 | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 19, 2007 4:55 PM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by SpaceHopper:
so it is just as valid or invalid as the theory of the one God.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:09 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
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.

Which is all I've been trying to point out throughout

Quote:
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

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
And let me talk about the weight of history a minute...

Things that exist a long time have weight, and that defies logic.

Not in a logical argument, where that would be called a logical fallacy as an appeal to tradition.

Quote:
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.

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, which is a younger belief system by some 700 years. Age does not determine the worth of a belief, not logically (as that is a logical fallacy) and not to the believers.

You can say FSM is all made up, but it would be stunningly simple for someone inclined to do so to argue that away. “Our prophet was touched by his noodly appendage, and interpreted it as only a physics graduate could, but the message is clear!”

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 6:36 AM

MAL4PREZ

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:
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.
But that's as valid a thing to say as "all Christians are lying, and don't really believe in god".

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:57 AM

LEADB

I knew I should have ducked after that last post.

Quote:
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".

Then do so; but be prepared to pay the price (ref: means and ends thread).

Quote:
I have no right to tell anyone else what they believe, and neither does anyone else.

I don't tell them what to believe; I am calling a spade a spade. Big difference.

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:59 AM

LEADB

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:16 AM

CANTTAKESKY

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:22 AM

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?

"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 | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE