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

[wellwisher]

What FSM and the mythology of religion have in common is that both are defined with symbols and therefore mean more than the superficial/literal. If you read a satire, you will not get the full meaning if you only think literally. You need to think outside the literal box to the hidden meaning that the author is trying to achieve.

The reason it is done this way is because the literal characters are easy to remember, even for a child. This allows the tale to be passed down over the generations in compressed form, like a zip file. We all know Little Red Riding Hood since it is easy to remember and tell.

The hidden meaning, within the literal, is harder to unravel and often changes within the context of each generation. The hidden meaning is more complex and does not pass down easily, like the literal, allowing the hidden meaning to be become renewed in the context of each generation.

It is actually quite smart. Picture a ball that a child carries and plays with. The child gives the ball to a Zen Master and he twists and turns it until it unlocks the ball. It is like a transformer that then becomes a complex device. Playing with the ball is easy but knowing the secret to open the ball, does not pass as easy. Even if you watch it happen it is easy to forget.

The problem is atheism preaches only the literal, and can't get past the child's ball version of an interpretation. In little red riding hood, since wolves can't talk, this can not be a transformer device, but only a ball. Therefore we will repress it since it is useless. The result is no puzzle and no hidden meaning.

 

[spidergoat]

once again, that would make sense if you could indicate a single advocate of the FSM outside of the antagonism commonly afforded to atheists

:shrug:

What does the number of advocates have to do with the truth of a theory?

 

[gmilam]

What FSM and the mythology of religion have in common is that both are defined with symbols and therefore mean more than the superficial/literal. If you read a satire, you will not get the full meaning if you only think literally. You need to think outside the literal box to the hidden meaning that the author is trying to achieve.

The reason it is done this way is because the literal characters are easy to remember, even for a child. This allows the tale to be passed down over the generations in compressed form, like a zip file. We all know Little Red Riding Hood since it is easy to remember and tell.

The hidden meaning, within the literal, is harder to unravel and often changes within the context of each generation. The hidden meaning is more complex and does not pass down easily, like the literal, allowing the hidden meaning to be become renewed in the context of each generation.

It is actually quite smart. Picture a ball that a child carries and plays with. The child gives the ball to a Zen Master and he twists and turns it until it unlocks the ball. It is like a transformer that then becomes a complex device. Playing with the ball is easy but knowing the secret to open the ball, does not pass as easy. Even if you watch it happen it is easy to forget.

The problem is atheism preaches only the literal, and can't get past the child's ball version of an interpretation. In little red riding hood, since wolves can't talk, this can not be a transformer device, but only a ball. Therefore we will repress it since it is useless. The result is no puzzle and no hidden meaning.

No, the problem is the religious literalists trying to shove their child's ball into the science classes of the public education system.

 

[wynn]

What does the number of advocates have to do with the truth of a theory?

It's not about the number, it's about the particular group of people who advocate the FSM - namely, there is just one group of people who advocate the FSM, namely a group of atheists.

Earlier, it was argued:

The assertion in question stands independently of any agenda associated with anyone.

But it is clear that there is only one specific group of atheists who are advocating the whole FSM argument.
Which makes it clear that the assertion in question clearly does not "stand independently of any agenda associated with anyone."

The FSM flies and falls with those atheists.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not about the number, it's about the particular group of people who advocate the FSM - namely, there is just one group of people who advocate the FSM, namely a group of atheists.

Earlier, it was argued:



But it is clear that there is only one specific group of atheists who are advocating the whole FSM argument.
Which makes it clear that the assertion in question clearly does not "stand independently of any agenda associated with anyone."

The FSM flies and falls with those atheists.

So let's consider a hypothetical atheist society. If some of those atheists proposed the idea of God, even for the sake of an argument they were having, they would be wrong because of who proposed the idea?

 

[Balerion]

It's not about the number, it's about the particular group of people who advocate the FSM - namely, there is just one group of people who advocate the FSM, namely a group of atheists.

Earlier, it was argued:



But it is clear that there is only one specific group of atheists who are advocating the whole FSM argument.
Which makes it clear that the assertion in question clearly does not "stand independently of any agenda associated with anyone."

The FSM flies and falls with those atheists.

That's like saying the argument against OJ Simpson did not stand independently of those who believed he was guilty. It doesn't matter if an atheist came up with the concept and atheists continue to employ it. What matters is the argument FSM makes. And that argument does stand independently of anyone's motives.

 

[Emil]

well for solipsists, nothing is falsifiable and everything is unfalsifiable. for them god is unfalsifiable as a shoe box whether it contains a shoe or not(even if you show me a shoe it may be an illusion of my senses).
can we say god's unfalsifiability is the same as the shoe's unfalsifiability?

if the answer is no, then we can't compare god's unfalsifiability to the FSM's unfalsifiability.

What you mean by solipsism?
1. The idea that nothing is real and we live in a dream.
2. Nothing can be demonstrate that it is real, except "Cogito ergo sum".

If you're not a supporter of an ultra skeptical position, that solipsism, then you have self evidences.

 

[wynn]

That's like saying the argument against OJ Simpson did not stand independently of those who believed he was guilty. It doesn't matter if an atheist came up with the concept and atheists continue to employ it. What matters is the argument FSM makes. And that argument does stand independently of anyone's motives.

So let's consider a hypothetical atheist society. If some of those atheists proposed the idea of God, even for the sake of an argument they were having, they would be wrong because of who proposed the idea?

Huh.

No argument ever stands indepedently of the motives of the person who makes it.

If it did, then people would not be needed in order to have discussions: the discussions would have themselves, out in some abstract dictionary space devoid of humans.

 

[Sarkus]

No argument ever stands indepedently of the motives of the person who makes it.

If it did, then people would not be needed in order to have discussions: the discussions would have themselves, out in some abstract dictionary space devoid of humans.

You're confusing an individual argument with the direction a line of arguments may take.

The motives direct the line of debate, but the individual arguments that anyone makes should be devoid of fallacies such as appeals to consensus, to authority, ad hominems, and red herrings etc.

To claim that an argument fails because only atheists make the argument is a logical fallacy: the argument should stand and fall on its own merits, irrespective of who made it, or why.
If you have issue with the intention behind an argument, that is a separate issue to the actual argument made... and speaks possibly to the assumptions behind the argument. But to read intention or other subjective issues into the argument in an attempt to belittle the argument or to claim it invalid is fallacious.

 

[spidergoat]

Huh.

No argument ever stands independently of the motives of the person who makes it.

.

In science it does. That's why we can debate creationists.

 

[Balerion]

Huh.

No argument ever stands indepedently of the motives of the person who makes it.

If it did, then people would not be needed in order to have discussions: the discussions would have themselves, out in some abstract dictionary space devoid of humans.

Now you're just being silly. Obviously without humans, there would be no discussion. But arguments are independent of motive, as they reliant on evidence. I can set out to prove General Relativity wrong and fail. I can set out to defend Creationism and fail. My motive has no bearing on the argument. I mean, Darwin didn't set out to affirm evolutionary thinking and shatter his faith in God, but that's exactly what happened.

 

[quadraphonics]

But it is clear that there is only one specific group of atheists who are advocating the whole FSM argument.

Right, just as there is only one specific group of theists who advocate the "argument" of any particular deity. So what?

Which makes it clear that the assertion in question clearly does not "stand independently of any agenda associated with anyone."

That doesn't follow. Unless you're using some strange, non-standard definition of what it means for an assertion to "stand."

You haven't even presented an argument here - it's just a premise and a conclusion, and some hand-waving that the conclusion is "clear."

Looks to me like you don't have an actual rebuttal to the assertion that the FSM is no more absurd than the Christian God, and instead are pushing for a derail wherein you get to bitch about "the atheist agenda" instead of dealing with the actual topic. Which is a standard tactic around here for a long time. It isn't impressive.

Moreover, if we applied your reasoning there to any given theist position, we'd immediately conclude that all deities are human inventions (as the assertion of their very existence would rise and fall with their believers). So, way to make the atheist case for us, and thanks for playing

 

[quadraphonics]

perhaps that would make sense if there was any other authority or popularity, aside from atheists talking about how they believe in the FSM, for you to appeal to

I didn't say I believe in the FSM.

The assertion in question is that doing so would not require any greater embrace of absurdity than would believing in the Christian God. Since I'm an atheist, you can safely assume that I reject the existence of both the FSM and the Christian God.

Atheists who claim to actually believe in the FSM aren't making "an argument." They're just mocking you.

Anyway I note that, as usual, you do not appear to have any substantive responses, just your usual tactic of derailing into a rabbit-hole of cascading obtusity and trollish condescension. Who do you imagine this impresses?

Oh and one more time, just to highlight the fact that you are evading this basic point: do you hold that theists generally come to their positions about which deities do and do not exist via some rational processes of weighing the absurdity (or not) of the various propositions available, with an eye towards avoiding the absurd? Because such an assumption is required by your assertion that an FSM no more absurd than the Christian God ought to be believed in by some large pool of theists somewhere.

 

[lightgigantic]

What does the number of advocates have to do with the truth of a theory?

its more what does the (complete) absence of advocates have to do with a theory ....
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

I didn't say I believe in the FSM.

I never said you did

The assertion in question is that doing so would not require any greater embrace of absurdity than would believing in the Christian God.

actually it would require more, since it is exclusively advocated by atheists .. who aren't particularly famous for their broadness of acceptance of the general principle.

Since I'm an atheist, you can safely assume that I reject the existence of both the FSM and the Christian God.

Atheists who claim to actually believe in the FSM aren't making "an argument." They're just mocking you.

then you are certainly up to speed with post 313

Anyway I note that, as usual, you do not appear to have any substantive responses, just your usual tactic of derailing into a rabbit-hole of cascading obtusity and trollish condescension. Who do you imagine this impresses?

:shrug:

Oh and one more time, just to highlight the fact that you are evading this basic point: do you hold that theists generally come to their positions about which deities do and do not exist via some rational processes of weighing the absurdity (or not) of the various propositions available, with an eye towards avoiding the absurd? Because such an assumption is required by your assertion that an FSM no more absurd than the Christian God ought to be believed in by some large pool of theists somewhere.

errr .... I wasn't aware I made that assertion .... but its certainly clear that many atheists have a tendency to steer the discussion with loaded questions like that

:shrug:

 

[quadraphonics]

its more what does the (complete) absence of advocates have to do with a theory ....
:shrug:

I'm not sure why you think that said lack is a problem for the atheist position as it relates to the FSM. The whole point of the FSM is that it's transparently absurd and so nobody believes it - and yet, Christians can't give a good answer as to why the Christian God is any less absurd. Instead, they run off into silly tangents and evasions like y'all are doing here.

Why are you so desparate to change the subject, and are you really unaware that your response plays exactly into the rhetorical strategy favored by advocates of the FSM?

 

[spidergoat]

its more what does the (complete) absence of advocates have to do with a theory ....
:shrug:

Nothing whatsoever!

 

[quadraphonics]

actually it would require more, since it is exclusively advocated by atheists

Doesn't follow. How, exactly, do you get from "exclusively advocated by atheists" to "more absurd than the Christian God?"

There's no argument there. This is just you dressing up "those atheist meanies hurt my feelings!" as some kind of intellectual response. It isn't.

.. who aren't particularly famous for their broadness of acceptance of the general principle.

What "general principle" are you referring to?

errr .... I wasn't aware I made that assertion

Call it an "implication" if you prefer - and note, again, that you refuse to respond on the substance, to simple, direct questions. Even if only to address what you see as a misinterpretation of your (cagey, obtuse) positions.

.... but its certainly clear that many atheists have a tendency to steer the discussion with loaded questions like that

Like I said: evasion, and personal defensiveness about how mean and unfair those nasty atheists are. You're an insecure troll with a thesaurus and an obnoxious avatar - were I a theist I'd be in a hurry to disown you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Doesn't follow. How, exactly, do you get from "exclusively advocated by atheists" to "more absurd than the Christian God?"

You don't find the notion of atheists believing in (a personal) god unusual?

There's no argument there. This is just you dressing up "those atheist meanies hurt my feelings!" as some kind of intellectual response. It isn't.

will the irony never end?

What "general principle" are you referring to?

see first point

Call it an "implication" if you prefer - and note, again, that you refuse to respond on the substance, to simple, direct questions. Even if only to address what you see as a misinterpretation of your (cagey, obtuse) positions.

You can call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care - I tend to stand by statements that people actually make as opposed to inventing stances for them to launch my criticisms from

:shrug:

Like I said: evasion, and personal defensiveness about how mean and unfair those nasty atheists are. You're an insecure troll with a thesaurus and an obnoxious avatar - were I a theist I'd be in a hurry to disown you.

lol
More irony ....
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Nothing whatsoever!

then I guess you have the means to entertain absolutely anything regardless of whatever evidence picks you up by the neck and slaps you across the face

:shrug: