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

[GeoffP]

Oh, come on.

Look, as mistaken as I think scientific investigation of religion is - this is my bias - can we just stop with the fucking FSM? It's fallacious. It was always meant as fallacious. Darwin alive, enough with the intellectual double-dealing, here. It's not helpful.

 

[Balerion]

Oh, come on.

Look, as mistaken as I think scientific investigation of religion is - this is my bias - can we just stop with the fucking FSM? It's fallacious. It was always meant as fallacious. Darwin alive, enough with the intellectual double-dealing, here. It's not helpful.

And Scientology was meant as a money-generating scheme. That doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of people who completely ignore that fact and take their faith very seriously. All it takes is for one suitably charismatic person to make a case for a deity, and that deity becomes "real." The Golden Plates of Mormonism, for example.

 

[GeoffP]

And Scientology was meant as a money-generating scheme. That doesn't mean there aren't a whole lot of people who completely ignore that fact and take their faith very seriously. All it takes is for one suitably charismatic person to make a case for a deity, and that deity becomes "real." The Golden Plates of Mormonism, for example.

Yes, but the people that follow Scientology are psychos. They believe it because they're massively fucked in the head. Does this comparison then not mean that those boosting the FSM are the same?

What the hell do we need the FSM for anyway? What's it proving that one cant argue just by saying the Abrahamic religions are objectively unrooted?

 

[answers]

Yeah Scientologists are crazy for believing in aliens and all that garbage. Now a talking snake and virgins giving birth to kids that can walk on water, that shit just makes sense!

 

[GeoffP]

Not exaactly the contrast under discussion.

 

[answers]

Actually I've deleted my comment, I don't want to get in an argument with you. Your replies are too long to read.

 

[Balerion]

Yes, but the people that follow Scientology are psychos. They believe it because they're massively fucked in the head. Does this comparison then not mean that those boosting the FSM are the same?

You know, you recently chastised me for saying that Islam is a poisonous faith, and yet here you are broadly generalizing Scientologists. Look, I don't disagree that the tenets are absolutely ridiculous, but I think you'll find that most Scientologists are no different than believers of any other faith. Go watch some testimonials from ex-believers (they're usually celebrities), and you'll change your mind.

What the hell do we need the FSM for anyway? What's it proving that one cant argue just by saying the Abrahamic religions are objectively unrooted?

That's like asking why we need satire. Come on.

 

[answers]

What do we need FSM for?

So that people that know better can have a laugh at the expense of those that don't.

It doesn't benefit the ones being laughed at in any way, but that's okay, not everything is for them.

 

[GeoffP]

Actually I've deleted my comment, I don't want to get in an argument with you. Your replies are too long to read.

This is a cornerstone of my argumentative work. Be afraid.

You know, you recently chastised me for saying that Islam is a poisonous faith, and yet here you are broadly generalizing Scientologists. Look, I don't disagree that the tenets are absolutely ridiculous, but I think you'll find that most Scientologists are no different than believers of any other faith. Go watch some testimonials from ex-believers (they're usually celebrities), and you'll change your mind.

Very well: point taken. I apologize to any Scientologists that were insulted by my unobjective comments. (Still...generally really a cult, isn't it? And no one really believes in the FSM.) If the FSM is being used as satire, it carries this inherent implication that it lands some kind of parsimonious point with respect to other religions. It doesn't, though: it's just a knowingly false construct. As a semi-theist, it strikes me as pointless and insulting to consider it on par. There are better points that can be made.

That's like asking why we need satire. Come on.

Eh. I'd use it as a point of satire to ridicule FSMologists, because I just don't agree it works in its originally intended niche. If you disagree, then we just disagree.

Respects,

Geoff

 

[wynn]

I don't see why hate is necessary.

Will the irony never end ...

 

[answers]

This is a cornerstone of my argumentative work. Be afraid.

lol

 

[wynn]

From our own perspective, we might not agree with all of their ascriptions of absurdity. We might think that we have far better knowledge and experience of many things. We are apt to laugh at them when they think that cell phones are big-mojo magic. And we are apt to dismiss their faith in their God as absurd.

But I think that most of us would agree that our particular culture at this particular time isn't the last word on knowledge and experience by any means. So we start to generate a new and more prescriptive idea of absurdity -- the idea of 'absurdity-in-principle' or 'absolute absurdity'. Ideas that any rational being should find absurd, no matter what their level of knowledge and experience is.

And I'm less sure that human beings have, or ever will have, any access to that absolute standpoint. (That's a big part of why I'm an agnostic.)

Meaning that ascriptions of absurdity are probably always going to be descriptive, local and culture-specific.

Oh, but to acknowledge this would be the end of satire!

And we can't have that, can we.

 

[Bells]

The difference? FSM is new, the christian god is old.

In 2000 years people will be taking FSM more seriously. The christian god was originally just a satire of the jewish god, now people get up in arms over it.

FSM was never intended to be taken seriously. It was 'created' by Bobby Henderson to prove a point to the Kansas Education board who were intending to teach Intelligent Design in a public schools instead of evolution.

By treating it as you are, you are actually going against what Henderson was trying to do.

Much as I loathe to agree with GeoffP, and believe me, it kills me to say this, he is actually correct.

FSM was always meant to be fallacious because it was created as a parody. People online just latched onto it because they thought it was cool and snubbed their noses at the mainstream. That was never it's intention. If you want to understand FSM, look up Russell's Teapot. FSM is like a modern version of that.

 

[wynn]

I'm an atheist myself when it comes to the deities of religious mythology, like Yahweh, Allah, Krishna and that crew. But when it comes to the big questions, I'm an agnostic. My atheism consists in my belief that the world's traditional religious mythologies don't provide satisfactory answers to the big questions. But it doesn't suggest any assurance on my part that I know what the answers to those questions are. (Provided that the questions make sense.)

Big questions such as?

The way I address this stuff is epistemologically, in terms of the theory of knowledge. This approach starts with human beings here on this planet, and then inquires into what kind of things we can know in our situation, and how we can come to know those things.

I agree.

And what we can know, among other things, is that there are many people who claim to believe in God.

But if we turn our attention away from God's purported effects down here on Earth, to the idea of probing God directly and investigating "his" nature with the tools and methods of our natural science, we aren't likely to have very much success. Natural science seems to lack the necessary epistemological access to whatever non-natural dimensions of reality might hypothetically exist.

The natural sciences are not even conducive to investigating our own mind, our own intentions. Knowing our own mind, our intentions is rather crucial in life.

 

[Balerion]

Very well: point taken. I apologize to any Scientologists that were insulted by my unobjective comments.

You misunderstand me. I don't cry foul because I think you're insulting anyone. I bring this up only because it's inaccurate. (full disclosure: I did not agree with you that only fundamentalist Islam was poisonous to society)

(Still...generally really a cult, isn't it? And no one really believes in the FSM.)

Well, they're all cults, or at least began as such. If this isn't an argument against Christianity or Islam, then it can't really be an argument against Scientology.

And no, so far as I know, nobody really believes in the FSM. But maybe someone will. You never know. But that's not the point. No one has to believe in it for it to work as a satire.

If the FSM is being used as satire, it carries this inherent implication that it lands some kind of parsimonious point with respect to other religions. It doesn't, though: it's just a knowingly false construct. As a semi-theist, it strikes me as pointless and insulting to consider it on par. There are better points that can be made.

The key qualifier here is "As a semi-theist..." which implies that your perception of insult is based on your belief that there is something like a god responsible for the universe (I'm assuming this is what you mean by semi-theist, but please correct me if I"m wrong). This is as opposed to finding it "pointless and insulting" based on some general objective observation.

That Pastafarianism is a "knowingly false construct" does nothing to discount it as satire. Many parodies or satires feature fictional stand-ins for the thing being parodied or satirized. Think of the Ig Noble Prize in science.

Eh. I'd use it as a point of satire to ridicule FSMologists, because I just don't agree it works in its originally intended niche. If you disagree, then we just disagree.

Fair enough, I guess. At least you admitted your opinions are based on your "semi-theism."

 

[answers]

FSM was never intended to be taken seriously. It was 'created' by Bobby Henderson to prove a point to the Kansas Education board who were intending to teach Intelligent Design in a public schools instead of evolution.

By treating it as you are, you are actually going against what Henderson was trying to do.

Much as I loathe to agree with GeoffP, and believe me, it kills me to say this, he is actually correct.

FSM was always meant to be fallacious because it was created as a parody. People online just latched onto it because they thought it was cool and snubbed their noses at the mainstream. That was never it's intention. If you want to understand FSM, look up Russell's Teapot. FSM is like a modern version of that.

How am I treating FSM incorrectly?

 

[Bells]

Nevermind..

 

[answers]

Yes best not to investigate your comment futher. The fact that it's based on incorrect assumptions may prove to show it to be a little bit misdirected.

 

[Bells]

Yes best not to investigate your comment futher. The fact that it's based on incorrect assumptions may prove to show it to be a little bit misdirected.

Don't worry, I won't be taking your posts seriously again.

 

[Balerion]

The difference? FSM is new, the christian god is old.

In 2000 years people will be taking FSM more seriously. The christian god was originally just a satire of the jewish god, now people get up in arms over it.

What evidence do you have that the Christian God was intended to be satire?