And now for something completely different by SignyM

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

As to the colour of a sign, the sky, calling a spade a spade &c. - What you see as a Spade I may see as a hoe, or a deer. If I am to state this, calling what you realize as a spade a deer, I am not lying am I?

I believe I established precisely that in my 'tale'; provided you account an honest statement of your perception, I will not disagree.

Quote:
I am simply stating what I believe ((And have every reason to believe)) even if it runs contrary to what you see.

and my tale supports that

Quote:
We cannot possibly argue that one's senses are more valid than another's when we get down to it, though I'd be willing to for the sake of brevity.

Which is what I said; so I presume your above statement is in concurrance with my earlier observation?

Quote:

As to the Beliefs espoused by Pastafarians being lies - LeadB, isn't this your Belief?

Precisely correct, which I said above.

Quote:
And if so, why are your beliefs as to the validity of their beliefs valid?

I have provided reasons as to what I believe; you may accept the reasons or reject them. That would be your call.

Quote:
Could not a hypothetical "LeadC Prior of The Flying Spaghetti Monster" come along and decide that your belief that his beliefs are lies are also lies?

Yes, and I would take comfort in knowing that I have written the truth of my beliefs. If he wishes to believe that I'm lying when I may simply be wrong is something I can live with. I would suggest you ask this LeadC what his -reasons- are for what he believes.

Quote:
In that situation, who can know really?

Well, I will know I'm telling the truth; you will have to assess whether you find more credence in my statement or LeadC's. I wish you the best of luck.

Quote:

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

Yes, it is not perfect.

Quote:

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

This is true. I still stand by the beliefs above. I still believe they are lying.

Quote:

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

Absolutely; and in the above case it would never occur to me that any of them were lying; and I would say each is correct.

(Edit: Ok, I would strongly suspect that Rue was pulling my leg, and I'd likely ask some questions ;-) )

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 7:03 PM

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

Thing is, I do believe that the vast majority of FSM-ers do not in their heart of hearts BELIEVE in the FSM. That is my personal belief, based on my own logic and observations. Are you telling me that I can't believe that if I choose to believe it?

I also think the vast majority of Christians do believe in God and the Bible, but I don't believe that the Bible is correct and valid. Are you telling me I can't believe that either?

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

I believe you can. (I getting the hang of this...)

AR: I don't believe any forms of "taking offense" are valid, and yet it happens. Where is the harm in trying to understand an offended person? And please don't go into "the attempt to expand what is of private and personal importance upon a general, public sphere where [it] doesn't belong" or "faith is no factor in law" because I've already stated my position on this several times. Belief/law separation, yay! Duh!! (How many times will I need to say this again... *sigh*)

OK, let's try another example. If antimason came on here and posted "I believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and God created it and there is little to no evolutionary change cause the Bible says so," I would believe that he believes that. I believe he's wrong, but I believe that he believes.

If Citizen posted: "I believe that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world yesterday and placed the fossils in the earth with His Noodley Appendages," I wouldn't argue over it, because I'd believe that he's playing at something and doesn't really believe what he's saying. Capisci?

Certainly, this example is no blanket statement, it depends on my experience with these two posters, and using the word "liar" is maybe too strong a statement, really, because it'd just fun irony on Citizen's part and not a villianous attempt to deceive. (As I see it.) Although, if you're going to be strict about it, if citizen posted the above and did not truly believe in the FSM as THE GORRAMNED ONLY TRUTH IN THE VERSE, he would be lying. You know. Strictly speaking.

Does that example help you understand me at all?

(bonus: how many times did I use "believe" in this post? top that! LOL!)

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

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:28 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
As stated previously, I believe a better tactic is to attack the -science- of ID.

You can't attack something that doesn't exist.

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:29 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
If antimason came on here and posted "I believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and God created it and there is little to no evolutionary change cause the Bible says so," I would believe that he believes that.

If?

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

Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
As stated previously, I believe a better tactic is to attack the -science- of ID.

You can't attack something that doesn't exist.

Bravo! My hat is off to you sir.

LeadB - I didn't mean for my questions to be directly aimed at you, and I apologize if any hurt was caused. That said, by your responses it seems to me that I must ask some further questions.

Firstly - Even if you have all the evidence in the world that someone is Lying about their beliefs, in the absence of a thought-reading device ((Which I believe to be entirely impossible, just for the record)), can you unequivocally say they are lying?

To explain, when I said "What you see as a Spade I may see as a hoe, or a deer. If I am to state this, calling what you realize as a spade a deer, I am not lying am I?" would you not have every reason to believe that I am lying, given your arguments? Because you see a spade, and I am giving you every reason to believe that I am seeing the same object, yet I refuse to believe it is anything short of a deer, could you not conclude ((Once again, by your arguments)) that I am lying? Even though in my realization of the world, what I say is absolutely true. And could I not thusly call you a liar as you are calling a deer a spade?

Secondly, wait, *Gasp!* I have had a Eureka Moment! (("Epiphany you Dumbass!" screams a small voice in my head.))

It would seem to me LeadB, that you are saying that you believe that Pastafarians are lying, but are open to our believing that you are stating these beliefs in less than good faith, and are thusly yourself lying! If so then I applaud you sir on your egalitarian position!

All in all I believe this has been a constructive post, for me at least! I think I now have a better understanding of you, LeadB, philosophically speaking. To quote The Last Samurai

Quote:
"This has been a very good conversation."

I look forward to further philosophical discussion my Forum Friends, and bid you all adieu for the night, and happy thanksgiving.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 2:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Thing is, I do believe that the vast majority of FSM-ers do not in their heart of hearts BELIEVE in the FSM. That is my personal belief, based on my own logic and observations. Are you telling me that I can't believe that if I choose to believe it?

I also think the vast majority of Christians do believe in God and the Bible, but I don't believe that the Bible is correct and valid. Are you telling me I can't believe that either?

You can believe what you like, but then saying "they're all liars", you're setting up your belief as more important than another's.

Quote:
I believe you can. (I getting the hang of this...)

Again, believe as you wish, but if you then move that belief on to a blanket statement about other people, then you're forcing your beliefs on to others. Further, if your saying "Everyone who believes X is a liar", the implication is that the belief isn't a real belief.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 2:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
LeadB - I didn't mean for my questions to be directly aimed at you, and I apologize if any hurt was caused. That said, by your responses it seems to me that I must ask some further questions.

No harm, nor hurt, nor even foul; it's just little ol' me, UnderFowl. Sorry didn't sleep well. Seriously, no harm at all.

Quote:

Firstly - Even if you have all the evidence in the world that someone is Lying about their beliefs, in the absence of a thought-reading device ((Which I believe to be entirely impossible, just for the record)), can you unequivocally say they are lying?

I have stated that I believe they are lying. I will leave in your hands to assess if this is an 'unequivocal' statement at or not.

Quote:
To explain, when I said "What you see as a Spade I may see as a hoe, or a deer. If I am to state this, calling what you realize as a spade a deer, I am not lying am I?" would you not have every reason to believe that I am lying, given your arguments?

I would have several possibilities. You might be teasing me(which for purposes of my primary position, would mean I in fact believe you are lying, just a 'white' lie). You might be insane (please do not take this personally; you have chosen the mode to refer to 'you and me', and thus I am telling you things I would consider; to date, I have no particular reason to suspect that you are insane (this advisement applies to all such future references)). You may have a medical condition which causes you to apply the wrong word to things. Keep in mind, my 'accusations' of lying above are strictly limited to the Pastafarians claiming to truly believe in FSM; and the claim is based on my study of history, current affairs, and my understanding of the nature of people. Before I could possibly assess the truth of your statements, I would need a context for this spade and why you, especially as an individual, would be calling it a deer. I'm open to many possibilities.

Quote:
Because you see a spade, and I am giving you every reason to believe that I am seeing the same object, yet I refuse to believe it is anything short of a deer, could you not conclude ((Once again, by your arguments)) that I am lying?

I could; but then I might decide you were insane. I have not context to work from.

Quote:
Even though in my realization of the world, what I say is absolutely true. And could I not thusly call you a liar as you are calling a deer a spade?

First, feel free to call me a liar on the topic. Expect others, before believing you, to ask for your reasoning. They may wish to examine your motives, and may not be satisfied. On my account, if the claim does me no harm, I will not take action against you; unless you succeed in convincing me you are insane and a genuine danger to the population, in which case we might call in folks to fit you with one of those -long- sleeve white jackets. Of course, I understand the risk; everyone else might see a deer and decide that if anyone needs the jacket, it is me. I accept the risk of this outcome.

Quote:
Secondly, wait, *Gasp!* I have had a Eureka Moment! (("Epiphany you Dumbass!" screams a small voice in my head.))

It would seem to me LeadB, that you are saying that you believe that Pastafarians are lying, but are open to our believing that you are stating these beliefs in less than good faith, and are thusly yourself lying! If so then I applaud you sir on your egalitarian position!

Very nice original thought. However, I am sincere in my belief that the Pastafarians are lying. I will note that in an earlier post, I may someday be convinced there is a sincere Pastafarian who genuinely believes in the existence and divinity of the FSM ; in which case I will have to amend my position that the religion merely founded as a false religion. To date, I have not been so convinced of any such instance.

I will also advise that I've read a great deal about the various uses to which the religion of the FSM 'adherents' have put the 'religion.' In general, I agree with the -goals- of these people, but not the method.

I've mentioned risk of 'costs' from pursuing an intellectually dishonest statement of position; I cite this as an example:

http://www.venganza.org/2007/10/23/mtu-pastafarians-harassed.htm

Quote:
MTU Pastafarians harassed
.... in part the message said:"they [ Pastafarians ] should be shot and hanged from the tallest redwood and then thrown to the raging sea."

I sincerely hope the MTU Pastafarians are safe and fine. Interestingly enough... "one would be hard-pressed to find a member of the group who truly believes in their parody deity–the Flying Spaghetti Monster." Which doesn't terribly surprise me. Again, you need to read carefully what I'm saying who is lying about.

I will say, I believe most Pastafarians are genuine about "creationism, whether or not one believes in it, is not a science, and should not be taught in a science classroom." Which, if you read my 'statement of beliefs' above, you will find it includes:"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."

and my second statement of belief is "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."

I will risk being redundant, and quote you... "but are open to our believing that you are stating these beliefs in less than good faith" I am very 'open' to this and will devote a reasonable amount of energy to convincing you that I am sincere in the position I am posting; I have provided reasons, supporting references, and observations. I hope, at the end of the day, you will believe that I am sincere when I say that I am concerned there will be unanticipated costs in pursuing this method to 'fight back' at the creationists; and that I believe there are better methods available to use to block creationism from being included in science text books.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 3:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
We don't do that with any religion, or shouldn't: allow it to supercede law.
I believe during prohibition that churches could still use wine. Certain native American folks are permitted to use and distribute substances (for the ceremonies) which by 'ordinary' Americans would yield arrest and prison terms. We do often allow laws to be circumvented due to religious traditions.

In that case these are specific, explicit exceptions to the law that should apply to all religious practices concerned. The law makes exceptions for religion as a concept, not for specific religions above others. I can accept that, as long as it is practiced equally.

In this case the nature of the exception is paramount, not the benefector of that exeption. If exceptions are made for certain religions but not others then there's a problem that clearly needs to be addressed.

Also, if the nature of those exceptions interfers with the point of the law.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 4:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
In that case these are specific, explicit exceptions to the law that should apply to all religious practices concerned. The law makes exceptions for religion as a concept, not for specific religions above others. I can accept that, as long as it is practiced equally.

In this case the nature of the exception is paramount, not the benefector of that exeption. If exceptions are made for certain religions but not others then there's a problem that clearly needs to be addressed.

Also, if the nature of those exceptions interfers with the point of the law.

Not all religions are treated the same.
http://www.mjlegal.org/religious.html
No Mary Jane for the devout.
(Note: I'm not arguing for or against the legalization of Marijuana, merely making an observation.)

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 6:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
In that case these are specific, explicit exceptions to the law that should apply to all religious practices concerned. The law makes exceptions for religion as a concept, not for specific religions above others. I can accept that, as long as it is practiced equally.

In this case the nature of the exception is paramount, not the benefector of that exeption. If exceptions are made for certain religions but not others then there's a problem that clearly needs to be addressed.

Also, if the nature of those exceptions interfers with the point of the law.
Not all religions are treated the same.
http://www.mjlegal.org/religious.html
No Mary Jane for the devout.
(Note: I'm not arguing for or against the legalization of Marijuana, merely making an observation.)

Then that's wrong, I'd say.

Where were we going with this?

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 7:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Then that's wrong, I'd say.

Where were we going with this?

That is a very good question. I actually thought you might have a destination in mind. But... since you asked ;-)

If I wished to establish a religion which permitted the use of heroine, required the use of heroine in fact, do you believe it should be permitted under law; or only 'real' religions should get this benefit?

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 7:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Then that's wrong, I'd say.

Where were we going with this?
That is a very good question. I actually thought you might have a destination in mind. But... since you asked ;-)

If I wished to establish a religion which permitted the use of heroine, required the use of heroine in fact, do you believe it should be permitted under law; or only 'real' religions should get this benefit?

I think no religion should get this benefit.

What I am saying is that if something is permitted on religious grounds, anyone claiming to do it on religious gorunds should have permission. Everything else is playing favorites on account of numbers.

I am NOT saying that everything should be permissible on religious grounds.

The real conflict there is in what is permissible on religious grounds at all.

Ideally there would be no exceptions. Everything allowed on religious grounds should be legal in the first place. That's apparently not the case, which I find worthy of questioning.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 7:45 AM

I think I see.
So you think perhaps instead the use of peyote by US Native Americans should be abridged despite a tradition of use for hundreds of years?

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411609

Edit:
Actually; this might be a bad example; enforcement of US law on Native American lands against Native Americans. If anyone happens to know, please advise; have to google a different example.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
I think I see.
So you think perhaps instead the use of peyote by US Native Americans should be abridged despite a tradition of use for hundreds of years?

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411609

No, actually, I think if the use of peyote is not inherently harmful used in a certain context of safety, then it shouldn't be illegal at all, or should be legal to all people claiming to use it for religious purposes, FSM or what not.

For contrast, I think the brutal slaughtering of people should not be permissible for anyone, religiously motivated or not. Nor do I think driving under the influence of religiously imbibed alcohol should be legal.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 8:00 AM

As much as I hate the use of drugs, over time I've slowly reached the conclusion that the war on drugs is a bust; and it should be decriminalized and regulated, as is alcohol.

I can't think of anything besides drugs which gets favorable status for certain churches.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 8:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
As much as I hate the use of drugs, over time I've slowly reached the conclusion that the war on drugs is a bust; and it should be decriminalized and regulated, as is alcohol.

I can't think of anything besides drugs which gets favorable status for certain churches.

Then we're mostly in agreement?

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 8:55 AM

Yep. And I'm out of ideas on where to go next; feel free to grab the wheel if something occurs to you.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 10:12 AM

RUE

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

I just thought I'd throw this in, which is me just musing.

Many many years ago there was a story about a woman who was having sex with LOTS and LOTS of men. In the thousands. Anyway, she claimed she was a priestess for (???) Egyptian god and it was part of her religion. But she was busted (and I believe convicted) for prostitution. (As you can see a lot of the details escape me, it was a long time ago.)

At the time I didn't know what to make of it though I remember giving her the benefit of the doubt, I think because of her age. She was old enough to be a grandmother.

Recently I learned via the History Channel that indeed one of the obligations of the priestesses was to have lots and lots of lusty (nearly acrobatic) sex into old age - as long as they could manage. So indeed she was quoting a bona fide but obscure part of an ancient religion in her defense.

So it touches on two issues -
whether or not we accept people's beliefs just b/c they claim them
how much do we allow under the right of religious freedom

Not that I have any solid conclusions. Just musing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 1:41 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
feel free to grab the wheel if something occurs to you.

Does this just apply to agentrouka or does it apply to anyone? If the latter then: rainbows. Discuss.

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 4:23 PM

They are pretty, and I'm all for rainbows. But you might get more folks if you start a fresh thread ;-)

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

Friday, November 23, 2007 9:23 PM

I believe rainbows are the earthly representation of the all powerful creation being - The Goddess Selene, or the Moon to you lesser mortals, who commands me to drink bacchanalian amounts of wine while driving and, as one of her monks, to engage in sexual relations with her priestesses ((Being Dancers, Actresses, and Girls with cute//hot feet)) occasionally for money. Also, Selene put the idea of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the head of its prophet in order to reveal her divine and Entirely non Noodly foot-creation-wellspring-appendage.

Now, do you believe me, or no? Am I lying? Am I telling the truth but think I'm just making a joke? Does this really Matter ((An Emphatic No if you ask me.))? Discuss, or not, as you will -

Just to bring this back to the original purpose of the thread.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
as one of her monks, to engage in sexual relations with her priestesses ((Being Dancers, Actresses, and Girls with cute//hot feet)) occasionally for money.

I find your gospel intriguing, and wish to subscribe to your religion.

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
I believe rainbows are the earthly representation of the all powerful creation being - The Goddess Selene, or the Moon to you lesser mortals, who commands me to drink bacchanalian amounts of wine while driving and, as one of her monks, to engage in sexual relations with her priestesses ((Being Dancers, Actresses, and Girls with cute//hot feet)) occasionally for money. Also, Selene put the idea of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the head of its prophet in order to reveal her divine and Entirely non Noodly foot-creation-wellspring-appendage.

Now, do you believe me, or no?

I don't believe you.

Quote:
Am I lying?

Yes, I believe you are telling a "white lie."

Quote:
Am I telling the truth but think I'm just making a joke?

Perhaps. By best guess is 'no'.

Quote:
Does this really Matter ((An Emphatic No if you ask me.))?

Another good questions. I'll give it a 'moderately'.

Quote:
Discuss, or not, as you will -

Just to bring this back to the original purpose of the thread.

Done;-)

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:00 PM

Ok, then how about this -

Is it possible to speak un-truths without lying? I for one believe it is. Whenever I start up "Alas, Poor Yorrick, I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest..." I am not lying, but I never did know a Yorrick, nor would I say any fellows of infinite jest.

It's then possible, I believe, to profess beliefs in something which is in all likelihoods patently false ((i.e. Pastafarianism, or my own herein described Moon and Foot worshiping ism.*)). It's simply farce, a form of acting on the grand stage if you will allow me the flowery prose.

P.S. - I only just realized that my description of the Most Honourable and Theatrical Order of the Priestesses of Selene comes off as if I meant our very own Summer Glau ((As a Browncoat, can I call her that?)). I would never sink so low as to imply that I am at all worthy of her, I simply meant my ex-girlfriend and the sort of girl I'm into ((Not to say that I was worthy of her either, but that's between me and my friend, who just happens to be my ex.))

*((I need to come up with a better name than this. Ok, here goes; how about Selenopodastry?))

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:27 PM

Hmm, I'd be willing to amend the 'profession of belief' to:

Quote:

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 speaking fictitiously for the purpose in some cases of convincing folks such as the school boards to not include things such as ID in the school science books (or for other 'social causes'), in some cases as a simple lark, and in some cases to simply to upset other folks.

That relieves of us the 'evil' word lie; however, I do not believe it makes a substantive difference. On the flip side, if there's any Pastafarians who find the 'new improved creed' less offensive, for the purposes of amicable relations, I'd be willing to go with a more 'politically correct' version.

Or could toss in 'theatrically' instead of 'fictitiously'.

Hey Citizen... if you are still reading, would that ameliorate any of your concern?

Back To BrowncoatSandinista
I like the name; though it is a bit long. The obvious abbreviation of BS is likely to at least produce snickers if not offense... As to Selenopodastry . . . That's likely to confuse most folks (and even I'm edging a bit to confusion; Moon Footed?), and is likely to get misspelled a lot. On the bright side, it's very unique.

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You can believe what you like, but then saying "they're all liars", you're setting up your belief as more important than another's.

With all due loving friendly respect, I think you're the one bringing up the issue of superiority (ie my belief being more important...). I'm making no judgement of the belief system itself.

To pick on antimason some more: suppose that anti showed up and posted: "I believe in evolution and the earth is definitely 4.5 billion years old!" Unless he explained more, I wouldn't take that statement as sincere. I would strongly suspect that he's being facetious for some reason of his own. This has nothing to do with the contest of my belief system versus the one he's falsely stating, because they're the same!

So, cit, if anti were to post the above, and I were to reply: "anti, you're pulling my leg. I know *you* don't mean that" would you say that I'm putting my beliefs above his stated ones? (Evolution more important than evolution? Huh?)

Quote:
Further, if your saying "Everyone who believes X is a liar", the implication is that the belief isn't a real belief.

No, my statement is about the people involved more the belief system. Sure - my opinion of the belief system does enter in, because the sillier the system, the harder folks have to work to convince me that they genuinely believe it.

Keep in mind, I'm not telling anyone what they should believe. I'm just using my brain and forming opinions. As far as I've seen, the FSM is a construct used (quite successfully) in a debate I feel strongly about. But I've yet to meet someone who could (or even tried) to convince me that they truly believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence. That doesn't mean I'll be picketing any new Church of FSM that gets built, or arguing with anyone who has moments of comforting oneness with the FSM community. I think that's lovely.

I feel it should be clear by now, but if not, I'll say it again: I do, yes I do, think that the FSM is a belief system. But I don't believe it has any genuine believers at the current time. Perhaps that defies the definition of "belief system" in some folks' dictionaries, and that's the problem here...

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

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Now, do you believe me, or no? Am I lying? Am I telling the truth but think I'm just making a joke?

I don't believe you, though if you went on for some time I may start thinking that you believe yourself. And then I'd be afraid, very afraid.

OK, I think liar's too strong a word. I think if you were lying, you'd come up with something less outrageous in a real attempt to fool us. What you've stated is so exaggerated that I assume you're out to prove some point with it. Which you are. So, words that apply better: facetious, ironic, farcical, etc

Quote:
Does this really Matter ((An Emphatic No if you ask me.))? Discuss, or not, as you will -

The sincerity behind your professed belief only matters in one sense: how I reply to you, and my personal opinion of you and your mentality.

Now, if I thought you really really believed all that, I might pay more attention, because I'm a dancer with cute feet (I think so anyway) and I don't want a bunch of creepy new-age priests humping my leg or drunkenly running their cars into my house. Since I know you're not serious, I'm not so worried about defending myself against you.

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

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
With all due loving friendly respect, I think you're the one bringing up the issue of superiority (ie my belief being more important...). I'm making no judgement of the belief system itself.

You're telling someone what the contents of their head is, and ignoring what they say it is. I'm not talking about the belief system, I'm talking belief as in 'contents of their head'.

Quote:
So, cit, if anti were to post the above, and I were to reply: "anti, you're pulling my leg. I know *you* don't mean that" would you say that I'm putting my beliefs above his stated ones? (Evolution more important than evolution? Huh?)

I didn't say it would be, and it's an entirely different situation to what I've been talking about.

Quote:
No, my statement is about the people involved more the belief system. Sure - my opinion of the belief system does enter in, because the sillier the system, the harder folks have to work to convince me that they genuinely believe it.

If you're making a blanket statement of all people that believe X, it HAS to be something inherent to X that you are basing your premise on, because you know nothing about the group, beyond their proposed belief in X.

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
You're telling someone what the contents of their head is, and ignoring what they say it is. I'm not talking about the belief system, I'm talking belief as in 'contents of their head'.

Now now... you're contradicting yourself cit. I won't go digging, but I'm sure pretty near every reply you've posted to me brings up and focuses on "belief systems" and how my stance is a judgement on the belief system behind the "liars." Even later in your same post, that's your focus, see:

Quote:
If you're making a blanket statement of all people that believe X, it HAS to be something inherent to X that you are basing your premise on, because you know nothing about the group, beyond their proposed belief in X.

Not completely so. As I said, I make my blanket statement based not only on the silliness of FSM, but on what I've observed of adherents to FSM-ism, including the creator of it all. I see no evidence for genuine, deep-seated belief in anyone's head. I see FSM-ers using FSM as a tool in a debate.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll change my hypothesis when I see enough evidence to convince me that there are FSM believers. Can I just point out that there has not been a single person on this thread stepping up to say: "But I believe in the FSM with all my heart and soul!" (If smartassisall is here - don't you even do it!

) Things on the ID threads were quite different, now weren't they?

OK, let me recap: what I've observed of FSM-ers is that they are facetious, as opposed to IDers who actually do believe. If you absolutely must see judgement in that, take it this way: I actually think the "lying" FSM-ers are more rational and less brainwashed than the IDers. I don't think this because of anything to do with the two BS filled myths, but because the FSM-ers don't actually believe their BS.

This is clearly all my opinion. (And since when is it not allowed to attempt to recognize truth from lies in people's heads? Uh... court witnesses?) I'm not trying to tell anyone what's in their head, because no one here is saying they believe in the FSM. If anyone was, that would change things. If anyone convinced me they believed, then I'd gladly update my theory as to FSM-ers.

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

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Now now... you're contradicting yourself cit. I won't go digging, but I'm sure pretty near every reply you've posted to me brings up and focuses on "belief systems" and how my stance is a judgement on the belief system behind the "liars." Even later in your same post, that's your focus, see:

I've been talking about both, but I've also been pretty clear on that particular aspect that I was talking about what is inside peoples heads. I've said as much a number of times (you don't really know what people are thinking, so on and so forth). There's two aspect I've been talking about, you seem to have confused the two as the same, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm talking about two different aspects of the same thing.

So yes, later in my post that's the subject, because later in my post I'm dealing with a different aspect of what I'm talking about.

One aspect is that your belief that they are lying, is not more correct than them saying they believe. The other aspect is that in order to say "everyone who believes in X is lying" is inherently a judgement call on X.

The second part is perhaps more specific than the generalised first. The first part is the general "you can't tell someone else what is in their head".

Quote:
Not completely so. As I said, I make my blanket statement based not only on the silliness of FSM, but on what I've observed of adherents to FSM-ism, including the creator of it all. I see no evidence for genuine, deep-seated belief in anyone's head. I see FSM-ers using FSM as a tool in a debate.

I'm evidently not making my point. If the only know data is X, and you make a judgement on "everyone X", how can you be basing it on anything other than X? You've not seen all people who say "I believe in the FSM", so there is no basis to say "everyone who believes in the FSM is a liar" beyond the FSM.

If I'd met only a few OAPs at a home, would it be fair to say "all old people are senile"?

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007 6:04 PM

Is it just me, or is there a lot of frustration piling up here? We're not becoming hostile combatants, are we, cit? Hope not!

And yet, back to the battle I go...

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I've been talking about both, but I've also been pretty clear on that particular aspect that I was talking about what is inside peoples heads.

So, when you said "I'm not talking about the belief system, I'm talking belief as in 'contents of their head'" what exactly were you referring to? I took it to be a general statement, because I couldn't tie that line to any one thing you've said. Perhaps you didn't mean it so generally...?

Hmm. Maybe what we need here is a definition of "belief system," because I think you're using the term fairly broadly, referring to a range of things, and I'm probably using it in a way that's much to one side of that range.

Quote:
One aspect is that your belief that they are lying, is not more correct than them saying they believe.

Uh.... wha? Huh? OK, I think I get what you're saying. Maybe. If you mean that anyone can be wrong, well duh! Of course I could be wrong.

As for sincerity... OK, I have a theory that FSM is a tool used to make an argument whereas ID is to-the-roots-of-the-brainwashed-psyche belief. Currently, this best fits my data, though it does depend on the hypothesis that FSM-ers don't truly believe. That could be wrong, because I am not omniscient and I don't know people think. That doesn't stop me from making a judgement call.

What's more, I *believe* my theory. I'm not just saying it facetiously to drive home some related point. So I am different from the physics grad student who wrote that FSM letter, wrote it tongue-in-cheek to argue against ID and not in true belief to start a religion. (If you want to argue that he meant it, go right ahead!) (And if you interpret this as me saying: the FSM guy's lack of belief means the schoolboard should count him less than they count the ID-ers," then you haven't been getting my point!)

Quote:
The other aspect is that in order to say "everyone who believes in X is lying" is inherently a judgement call on X.

Another difference between our arguments is that you're being very general with "belief in X", where X could be senile people, etc. I'm not being that general in my discussion, never have. I'm talking about the very specific case of FSM and ID.

Quote:
You've not seen all people who say "I believe in the FSM",

I've not seen a single one, actually, which is my point. But I've seen many who use it facetiously. Compare that to that ID-ers that pop up with passionate arguments... well, hey. It's not so hard to figure, now is it?

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

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

Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:05 AM