And now for something completely different by SignyM

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:56 AM

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

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:01 PM

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

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I went to every link and found not one 'compelling' or even mildly interesting claim.

You mean a claim that there is another cause? Well, I don't believe there is another cause of it.
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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:05 PM

Quote:
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.

Yeah, well, Buddhists eat the most noodles, so I'd say it was aimed at us....

Noodly Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:11 PM

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

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

MMMMmmmmmmmhhhhh ... nnoooooodles

Buddha bless you Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:07 PM

Quote:
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.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:16 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Erm, HIV destroys the immune system, eventually leading to the condition called AIDS.

Ugh. Allow me to clarify.

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:
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?

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.

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 4:32 PM

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

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 | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 20, 2007 4:34 PM

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

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:58 AM

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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.

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:
OK, I think we could make 4 groups here:

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?

Quote:
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.

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.

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:
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.

Quote:
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.

Beyond fanatics I've yet to come across a Christian that finds it insulting. Fanatics tend to find not getting their own way 100% of the time insulting though, so they're not exactly representative. The reaction of some people so insecure in their own belief they have to stamp out all others, really isn't a reason to placate them.

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

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:30 AM

FLETCH2

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:01 PM

Quote:
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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:41 PM

Quote:
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.

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.

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

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 2:46 PM

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

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
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.
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.

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.

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

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:35 PM

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:41 PM

Quote:
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'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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:46 PM

Completely re-editted.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
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'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.

I am observing the universe and making a judgment call. I suspect I will be disappointing you in this regard.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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:

You debunked your own position in an earlier post, with the stop sign thing.

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.

Quote:
You can't make sweeping statements that someone else sees things the way you do.

I made no claim that some see things the way I do or not, I merely said the words they were expressing were lies

Quote:
Even if, as far as your concerned, it's just calling a spade a spade.

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 2:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I am observing the universe and making a judgment call. I suspect I will be disappointing you in this regard.

You're making objective sweeping statements based on nothing more than you're own subjective belief. Rationalise your bias as you wish.

Quote:
I believe I have the right to speak the truth.

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...

Quote:
I warned you there would be possibly a heavy price to pay from this tactic.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:
I made no claim that some see things the way I do or not, I merely said the words they were expressing were lies

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.

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 lying and they don't believe what they say they do, if you say "you don't really believe that" you ARE telling them what they believe, even if you 'know' they're lying. No one has the right to tell someone else what they believe, even if they're so sure they know it for certain. That goes for any formulation of "I believe X", no matter what X might be.

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I believe I have the right to speak the truth.
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.

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.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:38 AM

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
Keep in mind you can call someone who professes belief in something a liar without challenging the validity of that which they are professing.

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.

Quote:
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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

Fair enough.

Quote:
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.

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”?

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:47 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:52 AM

DRAYKE

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:54 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 4:58 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not talking about the specific case of the FSM, I'm talking about general belief.

Thanks for sayin', sig. This is a key point. Can you see that leadb *is* talking about the FSM? As am I?

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:02 AM

DRAYKE

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:02 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:03 AM

Quote:
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

No apologies necessary! Or consider it accepted, in any case.

Start here:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=20&t=31523

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Do you believe? Do you honestly believe? If so, you may declare yourself an Anti-Pasta Farian.

But only if Anti-Pasta Farianism is a recognised belief by leadb

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm not talking about the specific case of the FSM, I'm talking about general belief.
Thanks for sayin', sig. This is a key point. Can you see that leadb *is* talking about the FSM? As am I?

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".

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Do you believe? Do you honestly believe? If so, you may declare yourself an Anti-Pasta Farian.
But only if Anti-Pasta Farianism is a recognised belief by leadb .

Hmm. A winky face. I guess we ran this one into the ground, eh?

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 5:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Hmm. A winky face. I guess we ran this one into the ground, eh?

Probably, agree to disagree?

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Hmm. A winky face. I guess we ran this one into the ground, eh?
Probably, agree to disagree?

Aye. Thanks for giving me more to think about.

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:07 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:24 AM

JKIDDO

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:25 AM

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

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:40 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 6:52 AM

AGENTROUKA

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:20 AM

MAL4PREZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:35 AM

AGENTROUKA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:54 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:15 AM

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:22 AM

AGENTROUKA

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:23 AM

DRAYKE

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 | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:36 AM