How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?

[wynn]

I see what you're saying, but I prefer not to be so fatalistic about it. People do change their minds. Perhaps the "Holy Trinity" won't, but their stubbornness isn't so much a product of faith as it is of ignorance. The whole Vedas discussion, for example. I feel that if they can have these bad ideas debunked enough, they might move on.

The challenge is getting them reduced to their faith. If I can get that far, then I'm happy.

I have suspected by now that your happiness depends on us changing in line with your desires ...

What a horrible way to live ...

 

[Balerion]

Proof of X is proof of X only if we can also be sure that it is not also proof of Y or proof of Z.

No one's talking about proof. We're talking about evidence. Proof exists in math, nowhere else.

Consider:

What would you propose could be proof of God?
A prayer answered? But for that to count as proof of God, you'd have to exclude the possibility of chance or some other agent that answered the prayer.

To be proof, God would have to come out of the sky and say "I'm answering this prayer," and then do it. To be evidence, however, we would only need to see some positive correlation between praying and that prayer coming true. Say, for example, a prayer group prays over a single cancer ward in a children's hospital, and all at once the children are all healed. That would be evidence of something more than medicine being at work. Not proof, but no one's asking for proof.

The absence of such evidence in spite of the claims to the contrary, and in spite of what we are told of a loving, benevolent creator, is evidence against the idea that the god you're trying to sell is real. I'm sure you'll counter with "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that's not always true. If people can be healed through prayer, then there should be some evidence of that. The fact that there is no evidence where there should be is evidence against it.

An example of natural laws overturned? But for that to count as proof of God, you'd have to exclude the possibility of chance or some other phenomenon.
Etc.

Again, you misunderstand the argument. No one is asking for proof. All the hand-wringing and proof-begging comes from your side, not ours. What our side wants is some evidence. Just something that says "Okay, that could mean a god or some god-like presence is intervening." As of yet there has been none. But trust me, overturning even one of the natural laws would be a wonderful start. There are many claims of just that in basically every holy text on the planet, so let's see one here and now. Make the earth stop rotating. That would be tremendous evidence.

To continue in this same manner, it would require omniscience to be able to exclude all those other things that are not God, to show that something was indeed caused by God, and not by something else.

I don't know why you keep bringing omniscience into the argument. It's irrelevant. Your argument is essentially you can't know anything without omniscience. That's bullshit. We don't need omniscience to know evolution happens, or gravity, or anything else. You just need evidence.

 

[wynn]

No one's talking about proof. We're talking about evidence. Proof exists in math, nowhere else.



To be proof, God would have to come out of the sky and say "I'm answering this prayer," and then do it. To be evidence, however, we would only need to see some positive correlation between praying and that prayer coming true. Say, for example, a prayer group prays over a single cancer ward in a children's hospital, and all at once the children are all healed. That would be evidence of something more than medicine being at work. Not proof, but no one's asking for proof.

The absence of such evidence in spite of the claims to the contrary, and in spite of what we are told of a loving, benevolent creator, is evidence against the idea that the god you're trying to sell is real. I'm sure you'll counter with "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," but that's not always true. If people can be healed through prayer, then there should be some evidence of that. The fact that there is no evidence where there should be is evidence against it.



Again, you misunderstand the argument. No one is asking for proof. All the hand-wringing and proof-begging comes from your side, not ours. What our side wants is some evidence. Just something that says "Okay, that could mean a god or some god-like presence is intervening." As of yet there has been none. But trust me, overturning even one of the natural laws would be a wonderful start. There are many claims of just that in basically every holy text on the planet, so let's see one here and now. Make the earth stop rotating. That would be tremendous evidence.



I don't know why you keep bringing omniscience into the argument. It's irrelevant. Your argument is essentially you can't know anything without omniscience. That's bullshit. We don't need omniscience to know evolution happens, or gravity, or anything else. You just need evidence.

This is what I was replying to:

Atheists reject God because they see no proof of God.

 

[Sarkus]

No, it seems to me that you are trying to get others to agree to the importance that you believe falsibiability plays in all this; it seems to me that you want others to view falsifiability as the ultimate factor for deciding truthfulness.

Then that is your misunderstanding.
The key issue in the comparison of the FSM to the Christian God (remember the title of this thread), and in the FSM to ID, is in their unfalsifiability.
It is thus important that if someone is going to argue against that then they at least comprehend what it means to be unfalsifiable - or at least argue that one or other IS falsifiable, but do so in a way that demonstrates they know what it means to be falsifiable.
Truthfulness is then a non-issue: one can not determine the truth of something that is unfalsifiable.

Do you believe that the people who do not place belief/trust/faith in that which has no proof, or at least no possibility of proof, are superior to other people?

"Superior" is not a word I would ever use so generically as it suggests a view on the totality rather than merely the principle in question. And it raises the question of "superior in what regard?"
No, I merely find them different. For the majority that difference is merely lack of critical thought on the matter... i.e. they are indoctrinated and just do not question - as they consider there to be no practical need to.
But "superior"? No.

It is also a truism that cannot translate into practice. So it's useless.

It can translate into practice - or do you not think it a key aspect that some people use when deciding what to focus on, what to consider further?
If a scientist arrived at an unfalsifiable theory, you think they would not step back and consider if it is something they should really pursue?

I take objection to the air of judgmental certainty with which you speak about what supposedly goes on in other people's minds and lives.

Objection noted, but there is no judgemental certainty intended. Unless someone wants to advise differently, the only thing I have to go on will be what goes on in my head... my thought process etc. And that is what I base my words on. Do I forget to add "In my view..." or some such disclaimer? Probably. But theories are always a matter of taking what is known, applying a claim that decribes it, and then seeing if further observations fit. If they don't - i.e. if someone says "you're wrong - this is why..." then the theory might be changed (if the explanation is not countered etc).

I'm in the process of trying to understand why you place so much weight on falsifiaibility. At the moment, that is all I can say, but my comments on the issue are throughout my posts, even if in an individual comment passage, I don't say much.

Because it is the key/only comparison between the FSM, ID and the Christian God. It was the reason it was raised by Henderson initially.
Yes, there are comparisons of the religions that subsequently follow - but these are secondary to the initial comparison - which is their lack of falsifiability.
I then got sidetracked on this rather simple point by someone who clearly did not understand what it meant to be falsifiable. So perhaps the point was laboured in an attempt to address that matter.

But merely seeking consistency and critical thought on the matter doesn't really put your mind to ease - or does it?

I'm not sure it's a question of putting one's mind at ease. My mind IS at ease... at least on most things. If this is a result of what I seek, or I seek it because my mind is at ease I couldn't say.

Why?
Good for what?

If one is right then one gets comfort from the sources and processes that led to being right.
If one is wrong then one can change and improve.

I think we tend to take for granted that we seek to be right - but it seems we often don't pay much attention to the intentions behind this quest.
Not rarely, we seek to be right about something simply because we hope we will get an ego boost from that being right ...

Possibly. In some cases it is not an ego boost merely from being right, but from being seen to be right. The child at the front of the class always putting their hand up to show the class that they know, compared to the one at the back who says nothing but compares his own answer to the right one... but perhaps that stems from protecting the ego rather than lack thereof.

As you say, important people in your life believe in unfalsifiable things, and these people influence you. Since they believe in unfalsifiable things that you don't believe in, you are left with these people's influence and are none the wiser ...

None the wiser in what regard? I am certainly wiser in understanding my own thought process. And I have discussed with those close to me. For the rest it is more a matter of practical influence, which in a more secular UK is somewhat limited.
[quoe]As it is, conceptualizing the whole problem in terms of falsifiability makes it unresolvable.[/QUOTE]It certainly moves the question of "why believe" away from that single issue. But the/my significant focus on falsifiability in this thread is solely a function of the thread being a comparison between the concepts of the FSM and God and ID etc. You should not then take it as being my key focus on the "whole problem".

 

[Balerion]

This is what I was replying to:

So then you agree that the actual basis for atheism is a lack of evidence, as opposed to a lack of proof?

 

[Jan Ardena]

river,

I am an atheist

my tough question to is , do you or have you explored the History of OUR Ancient past ?

I'm guessing you have no trouble in believing that et's have something to do
with us.

So my question to you is, why are you an atheist?


jan.

 

[GeoffP]

All you gave us are inferior comparisons and a reason to giggle.

People giggle for lots of reasons; valley girls giggle when they don't understand things, for instance, or so I'm told. I would have laughed a lot less if you'd grasped the nuance of that point instead of turning the thread into an ad hominem slugging match, girlfriend.

You know that you're wrong

Haw! Save your discord for someone intimidated by it.

I understand the difference, and as I said to you at the time, Islamic supremacism/fundamentalism/etc. is what I was talking about. I said the same thing to Bells, so I wasn't aware that repetition of that distinction was necessary.

Are you, ah, very sure about that? Very sure? Mind your bedfellows, JDawg. They may well mind you.

Well, actually Bells is a bit less particular. So maybe not.

Oh, I'm sure. It would benefit you greatly to have one less person making you look like a fool.

No no - it would waste less of my time arguing against non-arguments.

 

[Balerion]

People giggle for lots of reasons; valley girls giggle when they don't understand things, for instance, or so I'm told. I would have laughed a lot less if you'd grasped the nuance of that point instead of turning the thread into an ad hominem slugging match, girlfriend.

I haven't failed to grasp anything. I understand your argument. It's just that I know it's wrong (and so do you). Trying to spin that as some failure on my part to understand you just reinforces our opinion that you're being willfully obtuse on this matter. When your points are defeated, you throw a smoke bomb. It's nothing that the other trolls don't do. You're just smart enough to know better.

Haw! Save your discord for someone intimidated by it.

Intimidation? I'm just letting you know that I'm on to you, that you can drop the act. You should be thanking me for letting you off the hook.

Are you, ah, very sure about that? Very sure? Mind your bedfellows, JDawg. They may well mind you.

I've told you before that I have issues with Islam just like I have issues with all religions, particularly the monotheistic ones, but the context of my comment regarding you was our prior conversation about Islamic fundamentalism, Islamofascism, etc.. Bells was there, as well, so again, I did not feel the need to specify.

Well, actually Bells is a bit less particular. So maybe not.

It just kills you that she has no idea what you're saying right now, doesn't it?

No no - it would waste less of my time using non-arguments.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Bells]

Okay..

Lets tone it down a bit you two. Lets just tone it back a bit, okay?

You are getting off topic and a tad personal.

So take a step back and cool off.

 

[Balerion]

Okay..

Lets tone it down a bit you two. Lets just tone it back a bit, okay?

You are getting off topic and a tad personal.

So take a step back and cool off.

Seriously? I haven't even approached some of the things I've seen you write about other people.

EDIT: Apologies, I read that in haste and reacted just as quickly. Yes, we are getting off-topic, and I'll back off.

 

[Bells]

Seriously? I haven't even approached some of the things I've seen you write about other people.

It's more a case of you don't want it to get to that. Also, you and he are friends, you get along. Neither of you want to say something you can't take back.

This is no longer impresonal jousting or debate.

It never is when it pertains to someone's faith or belief.

So yes, seriously, don't say things you can't take back. In other words, don't take the road I took with Geoff long ago. It isn't worth it.

 

[GeoffP]

Okay..

Lets tone it down a bit you two. Lets just tone it back a bit, okay?

You are getting off topic and a tad personal.

So take a step back and cool off.

Fine. Discussion was going nowhere anyway.

 

[Balerion]

It's more a case of you don't want it to get to that. Also, you and he are friends, you get along. Neither of you want to say something you can't take back.

This is no longer impresonal jousting or debate.

It never is when it pertains to someone's faith or belief.

You're mistaken about the nature of my relationship with GeoffP. He's simply someone I confided in when you said I was no better than a mass-murdering psychopath. He's apparently had similar experiences with you. But friends? No. I can never truly be at ease with someone who goes to the lengths he has in this thread, so that's gone.

Also, this is a religious subforum. It's always about someone's faith or belief.

So yes, seriously, don't say things you can't take back. In other words, don't take the road I took with Geoff long ago. It isn't worth it.

I can think of someone else you took that road with, but apparently they don't register enough to make mention. :shrug:

But okay, I take your point, and I'll back off.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Bells,

Wynn and Jan.. heh.. Look, I once watched them try and discuss theism and trying to explain the scripture and the Bible and it was funny and frankly, I just don't bother anymore because it is just cruel to make fun of people.

God knows the world needs laughter Bells.
I'm glad to have been of service.

Do you remember the thread, a good few years ago, where (i don't remember the details) where a pilot prayed before the plane crashed?

I thought you're performance was classic, especially the back-peddleing.


jan.

 

[wynn]

The key issue in the comparison of the FSM to the Christian God (remember the title of this thread), and in the FSM to ID, is in their unfalsifiability.

My point is that this is the comparison issue that you focus on, for some reason. (Along with Henderson and some others.)

Comparisons do not exist on their own, objectively somehow.

Any two things can be compared in a number of ways, depending on the purpose of the comparison.

For example, the long neck isn't the only comparison to be made between a bottle and a giraffe. They are also both things, require oxygen in some form or another, they are containers to store liquid, neither of them fits into a wallet, neither of them can stand extremely low temperatures ...
It all depends on the purpose of the comparison.


So I've been trying to figure out why you are focusing on in/falsifiability when comparing the FSM and the Christian God.

It seems the purpose of focusing on in/falsifiability when comparing the FSM and the Christian God is that this is a semi-rational and easy way to dismiss them, and that your aim is to dismiss God.

 

[Balerion]

My point is that this is the comparison issue that you focus on, for some reason. (Along with Henderson and some others.)

Comparisons do not exist on their own, objectively somehow.

Any two things can be compared in a number of ways, depending on the purpose of the comparison.

For example, the long neck isn't the only comparison to be made between a bottle and a giraffe. They are also both things, require oxygen in some form or another, they are containers to store liquid, neither of them fits into a wallet, neither of them can stand extremely low temperatures ...
It all depends on the purpose of the comparison.


So I've been trying to figure out why you are focusing on in/falsifiability when comparing the FSM and the Christian God.

It seems the purpose of focusing on in/falsifiability when comparing the FSM and the Christian God is that this is a semi-rational and easy way to dismiss them, and that your aim is to dismiss God.

One's aim doesn't have to be to dismiss God to see the comparison and then draw the conclusion that they can both be dismissed.

 

[spidergoat]

...Consider:

What would you propose could be proof of God?
A prayer answered? But for that to count as proof of God, you'd have to exclude the possibility of chance or some other agent that answered the prayer.
An example of natural laws overturned? But for that to count as proof of God, you'd have to exclude the possibility of chance or some other phenomenon.
Etc.

To continue in this same manner, it would require omniscience to be able to exclude all those other things that are not God, to show that something was indeed caused by God, and not by something else.

What if only Catholic prayers were answered? I would consider that strong proof for the God of the Catholics.

 

[GeoffP]

Heh. Comparative prayers. That would have the advantage of a functional contrast along an axis of the preferenda of God, maybe. Or maybe God is really ecumenical and it would crank up the inter-subject error, killing the F-ratio. There's a new potential problem: different messages.

 

[Bells]

You're mistaken about the nature of my relationship with GeoffP. He's simply someone I confided in when you said I was no better than a mass-murdering psychopath. He's apparently had similar experiences with you. But friends? No. I can never truly be at ease with someone who goes to the lengths he has in this thread, so that's gone.

Also, this is a religious subforum. It's always about someone's faith or belief.



I can think of someone else you took that road with, but apparently they don't register enough to make mention. :shrug:

But okay, I take your point, and I'll back off.

If you want to keep your anger towards me, that is fine. I can take it.

However, said anger is also not really pertaining to this thread's subject matter.

And while this is the religious forum and thus, it will always be about someone's faith, and yes, there are some hum-dinger battles and where it has gotten very personal, getting personal with someone you had previously gotten along with fairly well and as you just admitted, someone you confided in, because of their faith or because of the nature of this particular issue (I had explained why in previous posts to you in this thread), then that is wrong.

Geoff and I do not get along. I ignore him outside of Human Science and the other few sub-forums where because of my position here, I have to read what is posted there regardless. I do it to avoid conflict with him because we do not get along and because the nature of our conflict has always tended to steer into what is personal. On the few occasions where we argued via PM or on the open forums. What has been said between he and I can never ever be taken back. Ever. My previous advice to you was to ensure you do not go down the road we did. I am not going to defend my actions or accuse him of his towards me. It would be off-topic and frankly, would just create more conflict. I prefer to just ignore him. Makes me happy and I don't care how that makes him.

Was he being intellectually dishonest in this thread? Yes, very much so. Was it annoying? Yes. Arguing about faith is one thing on this sub-forum. But dragging someone over the coals because of their faith or their discomfort in an argument because of what they believe religiously and where the alternative would be for them to confront their atheism or to force them into that standpoint and to do it in such a personal manner? I'll put it this way. It was clear he was not comfortable and he had made that clear... And that is where and why it should have stopped. In other words, it was no longer about the subject of this thread but was leaning more towards his being dragged through the ringer because he wasn't declaring atheism almost, if that makes sense...

You don't like me and you are also angry with me. As I said, I can take it and you can go off at me as much as you want. I don't really care. But he cared that he was being targetted because he wasn't going to take a line that would force him to declare his theistic leanings as being void and thus, an atheist.

Atheism is always personal. It shouldn't be forced on someone that way. That is more damaging to an individual's psyche. I do not think that is acceptable. Even if the target is Geoff.

 

[Bells]

Bells,





God knows the world needs laughter Bells.
I'm glad to have been of service.

Do you remember the thread, a good few years ago, where (i don't remember the details) where a pilot prayed before the plane crashed?

I thought you're performance was classic, especially the back-peddleing.


jan.

You often find amusement in threads discussing the deaths of people?

Yes, I remember the thread well. I also admitted my mistake, as did everyone else.

Now define theism for me. Go on! I need a giggle today. Been a bad day.