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

[wynn]

I think Wynn's point here was that if there is no pasta, it would be difficult to have any sauces to go with it.

No.

What some atheists are doing is that they insist on a generic concept of "God," a concept of "God" that would be separate from any and all existing theistic religions.

I argue that it is impossible to think of "God" in such an abstract, generic manner.
Whenever we think of "God," we have in mind a definition that we have in full or partly taken from an existing theistic religion.

 

[Repo Man]

How a US soldier finally got his Pastafarian dogtags.

 

[river]

I assume that FSM means , fundamental scientific method ?

 

[Balerion]

I see GeoffP has moved on to what he thinks are easier pickin's.

 

[river]

so again , what does FSM mean ?

 

[Balerion]

so again , what does FSM mean ?

If you had bothered to read the thread, or even just a couple of posts at random, you'd know the answer to that.

 

[river]

If you had bothered to read the thread, or even just a couple of posts at random, you'd know the answer to that.

I tried , more than once , usually I can figure it out , but not this time

why the run around , just tell me what FSM means , whats the problem ?

 

[Balerion]

I tried , more than once , usually I can figure it out , but not this time

why the run around , just tell me what FSM means , whats the problem ?

It's spelled out in the third post of the thread. And it could be Googled or Wiki'd easily. I just don't know why you'd post instead of just finding out for yourself.

At any rate, FSM is an acronym for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have a post a page or two back that explains how the FSM entered our vernacular, how it's misrepresented by people like scifes and GeoffP, and even provide a link to the letter to the Kansas Board of Education in which the FSM first appears.

 

[GeoffP]

Pickin' on the FSM

I see GeoffP has moved on to what he thinks are easier pickin's.

Why is it this simple topic evokes such an emotional response? I'm not calling for the repression of the idea, but of the specific contrast. Geez. I don't think this message has changed terribly over the thread.

I have a post a page or two back that explains how the FSM entered our vernacular, how it's misrepresented by people like scifes and GeoffP, and even provide a link to the letter to the Kansas Board of Education in which the FSM first appears.

Yes, yes, that's all wondrous, but everyone and his monkey has been doing the same for some time now. No one is in any doubt as to what the letter was about, and based on the responses of at least one of the apparent representationalists in this thread, I don't think there's a lot of doubt about how it gets used conventionally either.

 

[Balerion]

Why is it this simple topic evokes such an emotional response? I'm not calling for the repression of the idea, but of the specific contrast. Geez. I don't think this message has changed terribly over the thread.

What emotional response? You couldn't defeat my point, so you moved on to someone you think you can handle. You're not faring any better against him, but that doesn't change anything. I'm making an observation.

Yes, yes, that's all wondrous, but everyone and his monkey has been doing the same for some time now. No one is in any doubt as to what the letter was about, and based on the responses of at least one of the apparent representationalists in this thread, I don't think there's a lot of doubt about how it gets used conventionally either.

You're confusing Pastafarianism with the FSM. You're using them as interchangeable items, and arguing that unicorns or aliens would serve as better parodies, but as far as I'm aware, there are no unicorn religions. There is an alien religion, come to think of it, but that's an actual religion that people really believe in in (Raelianism, I believe) so it wouldn't serve our purposes here.

But even then, Pastafarianism is not an argument against God. It's a parody of religion. It demonstrates the silliness of dogma by holding it up without God as its backdrop. You can type it until you're blue in the fingers that it doesn't work, but your only arguments against it have been that it's archaic, which even though you have a tendency for stretching words beyond their definition (parsimonious comes to mind), there is nothing archaic about the FSM, which is all of seven years old, and Pastafarianism, which is even more recent. And the basis for your arguments in favor of unicorns and aliens is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the point of either of these items.

 

[Bells]

But even then, Pastafarianism is not an argument against God. It's a parody of religion. It demonstrates the silliness of dogma by holding it up without God as its backdrop.

"the gift of faith in Pastafarianism is essentially belief in a set of extraordinary claims which (deliberately) lack extraordinary evidence."

[Source]
​

I think some people should actually read up on what it is actually about before trying to compare..

 

[Balerion]

"the gift of faith in Pastafarianism is essentially belief in a set of extraordinary claims which (deliberately) lack extraordinary evidence."

[Source]
​

I think some people should actually read up on what it is actually about before trying to compare..

I think someone needs to turn up their irony detector...

 

[Bells]

I think someone needs to turn up their irony detector...

Psst..

I was actually agreeing with you..

 

[Balerion]

Psst..

I was actually agreeing with you..

Whaddaya mean my face is red? It's from...allergies! Yeah, that's it. Allergies.

 

[Sarkus]

Actually, it completely does. I even gave an example of a parody with a more nuanced critique-in-being. Human culture is rife with such examples. Do you just really, really like pasta?

Whether there are alternatives that get a similar point across does not diminish the purpose and intent of a parody. Parodies help highlight in humour what others may miss in more serious discussion.

Unicorns. Aliens. The Loch Ness monster. FSM was a bad contrast to begin with and it hasn't got any better

And all these were used specifically to contrast against ID, or to raise the issue with unfalsifiable claims? Yep, archaic indeed.

See above. I note that your usage in this thread is a bit loose too - this is where the social problem lies.

Usage of what?

I thought you said that the FSM was meant to critique ID based on its roots in deism, rather than the concept of a deity itself?

I'm referring to the title of this thread (FSM v Christian God).
And I have not mentioned deism in this thread: ID is a claim held by deists and theists alike.

I like it when these arguments veer off into the veiled personal shots. I like to wave at them as they go by.

It's not a veiled personal shot: it is an explicit criticism that you do not appear to understand what it means to be falsifiable. You can counter this criticism by demonstrating that you do understand through your usage.

Observation: the FSM was produced artificially and deliberately so.

That's not an observation that addresses the existence of the FSM, merely of our initial thoughts on the matter.
As said - the FSM may exist and put the concept into someone's head, that someone "creating" the concept of the FSM for humanity... with the idea that in 2000 years the FSM is accepted as a recognised deity.
You can not disprove this. It is unfalsifiable.
All you can do is show that our understanding of the FSM is through someone who considers they have created the concept.
But the actual existence of the FSM...? Nope - it's unfalsifiable.

So now we're on to concepts as such? I thought we were talking about reality; this was not the point of the contrast?

Apologies - so presumably you can prove ID is real? You can prove God is real?

Ho ho! Oh no, they are not. The FSM is, from the get-go, false.

Prove that the FSM does not exist.
Yes, you can (as mentioned several times) go back to discover man's first thought of the concept, but you can not prove that this was not planted in Bobby Henderson's head by the FSM Himself.
The FSM is unfalsifiable.
If you think otherwise PROVE THAT THE FSM DOES NOT EXIST.
It is insufficient to prove that Man's first notion was seemingly conceived in parody.

The same cannot be said of God. The FSM falls, and God remains in the unknown. Before you get angry, stop and think for a second here: I can trace the FSM back to a single kid who was critiquing ID. I don't think unicorns exist either, but I can't trace that back to a deliberate invention (although I could certainly allude to a miscomprehension. God appears quantitatively unlikely, but the FSM is far more so - and it could be argued that it's categorically false in a binary kind of way.

They are both unfalsifiable deities. Period.

And that, to maul Yeats, makes all the difference. It would be a world of difference: you're admitting, in effect, that the FSM is indeed false - as it clearly is, and was so intended from its debut - but that that tiny world of difference shouldn't matter in the parody of a being that might exist, but who is not admittedly farcical in the minds of its adherents.

I am not admitting the FSM is false - I am admitting that the existing concept of the FSM is that it was created in parody and to make a point. But the FSM, as with infinite other concepts, are unfalsifiable.
I can no more claim them false than I can any other unfalsifiable.
Do they warrant any consideration in terms of believing them to be "real", to actually exist? No. But this is a somewhat different matter, with issues of Appeals to Authority to consider.

The strange thing is that I've given you some other, worthwhile examples that could be used in such a way - or in a vastly more effective way than the limp FSM - but you don't take note.

Because we're not discussing whether there are better analogies/parodies... but the FSM.
If the thread is "Are there better ways of raising the issue of falsifiability with regard God" then what you are saying may have more weight.
But we're not. We're talking about the FSM specifically.

Can you really not see the difference? Unless by "conception" you mean that Henderson was secretly the messiah for a genuine and earnest religion. There are stranger things in heaven, Horatio, but I think we can probably shit-can that idea at the least.

Who are we to say what 2,000 years of history can result in.
But anyway, this are matters of practice, not of the principles and concepts involved in the core: FSM / Christian God.

Actually, that would be rather the central point of the entire discussion on theism and Abrahamism, and so is a much bigger invention. If I could prove that God was not a human invention, all debate would be over. Neither can I prove God is not a human invention. Frankly, there's no way to tell.

And even if you found a book that said "Today I woke up and conceived of God" people would still argue that it was merely "God working in mysterious ways".
This is the point - God is unfalsifiable.
So you are left in the same position as with the FSM now. The only difference might be the relative infancy of the religion.

On the other hand, I can indeed prove that the FSM is a human invention;

You can certainly prove that our first awakening to the idea of the FSM was through a human conceiving the idea.
But this does not mean that the FSM definitely does not exist.
If you want to try to prove the FSM does not exist, feel free.

Well, when the author of the FSM wants to admit in all seriousness that this was the case, be sure to post it.

All the author can do is explain why he thought of the idea.
As said, it could be that the FSM planted this in the guy's head.
Who are you to prove otherwise.

Your argument is relying on the years that Christianity has existed, and the longer time that God has been conceived of, as authority to separate it from other unfalsifiable concepts.
Your view of the underlying principles and issues are clouded by matters of practice, of what might be more reasonable to believe etc, when these have no bearing on the issue.
And you dismiss based on what you see as better concepts to make the same point, all of which miss the key point that the FSM is a deity... and it seems to be this that irks you the most... that someone is daring to raise a comparison to God, or to ID, or to other unfalsifiables that are so clearly held in such high esteem.
And no, these are not veiled personal attacks - they are explicit criticisms of the position you have documented in this thread.

 

[Sarkus]

The question was:
How can it be possible to "discuss God" apart from theistic religion?

Because the issue being discussed - at least regarding falsifiability - does not need to be with regard a specific religion.

But it doesn't make sense to talk about God without reference theistic religion.

The term "God" gets its meaning in theistic religion.

Outside of that discourse, it has whatever meaning anyone ascribes to it, but with such ascribing, we're in Humpty-Dumpty land where a word means whatever someone wants it to mean ...

Sure - and if we were discussing some aspects of God specific to, say, Christianity then we would need to discuss Christianity for sure.

But at the moment we're discussing the core concept of God as an unfalsifiable concept.

You yet need to show that these analogies apply.

Yours are only partial. The complete ones would be, starting with the first one:

"The same way that one can discuss the nature of pasta without necessarily referencing the various and numerous sauces that might accompany it, without necessarily referencing the way the pasta is prepared, what it is made of, who prepared it and why."

If that makes it better for you.
I can hand you a piece of dried pasta and ask you to discuss it without any knowledge of anything else. You would know only so much, but if those aspects are what is being discussed...?

No. Such separation does not clearly exist.

That there exists such separation is an idealization. (Except for Humpty-Dumpty perhaps.)

How so?
I admit that one cannot have a theistic religion without reference to the deity, but the deity exists (or not) irrespective. There is thus separation, such that one can discuss the God - or at least key aspects of - without reference to the religion.

No. For all practical intents and purposes, the Italian language precedes Italian grammar books, dictionaries, texts and speakers.

Then I would say that the analogy is false, as clearly we do speak of God (key aspects such as existence or lack thereof) without reference to the religion.
If you see that as an idealisation then I fail to see how such an idealisation affects the principles being discussed.

 

[GeoffP]

What emotional response? You couldn't defeat my point, so you moved on to someone you think you can handle.

Meaning you think Sarkus is dumber than you? Nice. I had no idea what the earlier "easier pickin's" comment was supposed to mean. JDawg, let me be frank: I'd forgotten about you. Sorry about the damage to your ego.

You're confusing Pastafarianism with the FSM. You're using them as interchangeable items

Actually, I was pointing out the misuse by those employing one or the other in argument; now, that is in fact based on slide in intent. (Actually, I'd be interested to see just how strong a firebreak between those things actually occurs or could occur in said employers. Are there orthodox and reformed Pastafarians, for example? )

, and arguing that unicorns or aliens would serve as better parodies, but as far as I'm aware, there are no unicorn religions.

Well, there were no pasta religions either, but there are now. I think you do see what I'm pointing out here but are loathe to admit it. Anyway, I'm not interchanging anything with anything. My arguments have been pretty specific: that the FSM was a bad contrast to suggest in the first place - and it was - and that it gets used as a panacea attack on the idea of religion in common practice. There's been nothing on this thread to illustrate otherwise. Neither of those issues conflicts with the facts of the initial intent of the FSM, either.

But even then, Pastafarianism is not an argument against God. It's a parody of religion. It demonstrates the silliness of dogma by holding it up without God as its backdrop.

Well, dogma being central to essentially all religion, this would indeed constitute an attack on God as a concept, which is the same thing for all practical purposes. These firebreaks seem to be artificial. Frankly, the FSM invokes Pastafarianism in practice.

There is an alien religion, come to think of it, but that's an actual religion that people really believe in in (Raelianism, I believe) so it wouldn't serve our purposes here.

Actually, that would exactly suit our purposes here, since the belief in it is not cynically motivated. There is genuine belief in the above; it therefore would have better suited for Henderson to use Raelianism. Instead, he got creative in a bad way.

You can type it until you're blue in the fingers that it doesn't work,

I guess this is the place where I start to tune out your discussion. There's no "typing till you're blue in the face", no misunderstanding - in what possible way does one 'misunderstand' such a simple contrast? - nor much else you allude to in the last paragraph. Is this discussion being furthered by such colouring? What does it help? And BTW: a bad idea is rendered quickly useless, so 'archaic' is just fine. Bad logic should be archaic. It deserves to be put rapidly in the rear-view mirror. I know why you get so excited about someone puncturing the FSM but I don't particularly care, since we're all running around treading on each other's sensibilities anyway.

Oh, what the hell: You alluded to Raelianism above. Do you not see that this would be a better contrast than an unrooted invention?

 

[wynn]

If that makes it better for you.
I can hand you a piece of dried pasta and ask you to discuss it without any knowledge of anything else. You would know only so much, but if those aspects are what is being discussed...?

But this is not what is happening here.

How so?
I admit that one cannot have a theistic religion without reference to the deity, but the deity exists (or not) irrespective. There is thus separation, such that one can discuss the God - or at least key aspects of - without reference to the religion.

No. The moment one starts to discuss "God," one is in the domain of theistic religion.


And just because one uses the word "God" does not mean that one actually is talking about "God."
It could easily be a case of mistaking the identity of the subject of discussion.

Then I would say that the analogy is false, as clearly we do speak of God (key aspects such as existence or lack thereof) without reference to the religion.

No. You are simply ignoring that you are taking your ideas about "God" from existing theistic religions; or at least that your thoughts on "God" are reactions to existing theistic religions.
Without existing theistic religions, it is impossible to talk about "God," as any and all ideas about "God" are directly or indirectly coming from theistic religion.

If you see that as an idealisation then I fail to see how such an idealisation affects the principles being discussed.

In that you are assuming more autonomy in the discussion of "God" than you actually have.

 

[wynn]

Because the issue being discussed - at least regarding falsifiability - does not need to be with regard a specific religion.

It cannot be discussed any other way than in regard to a specific religion.
Because "God" cannot be discussed without regard to a specific religion.

That generic, general, neutral, abstract concept of "God" that you aim at and aim to discuss,
is actually empty, it has no qualifiers, because all actual qualifiers of "God" are religion-specific.


That generic, general, neutral, abstract concept of "God" is the "God of philosophers" and it is an invention of philosophers.
No theistic religion ever claimed that that "God of philosophers" exists or has this or that quality.
Whether "God" indeed has the qualifiers ascribed to him by philosophers - that is something the philosophers cannot establish.

But at the moment we're discussing the core concept of God as an unfalsifiable concept.

What we should be discussing is whether we as humans can deal in falsifiable and unfalsifiable concepts at all.

Moreover, we should be discussing what it is that we try to accomplish by presuming ourselves to be able to discuss "God" without regard to existing theistic religion.

 

[Balerion]

Meaning you think Sarkus is dumber than you? Nice. I had no idea what the earlier "easier pickin's" comment was supposed to mean. JDawg, let me be frank: I'd forgotten about you. Sorry about the damage to your ego.

I did not mean at all that Sarkus is dumber than me. Even if I thought his argument was weaker (which I do not), that would not in any way imply that he was any less intelligent than I am. It's a pretty cheap tactic to stir the pot in such a way. I think an apology is in order.

Actually, I was pointing out the misuse by those employing one or the other in argument; now, that is in fact based on slide in intent. (Actually, I'd be interested to see just how strong a firebreak between those things actually occurs or could occur in said employers. Are there orthodox and reformed Pastafarians, for example? )

That would be fine, except that isn't what you were arguing against. You argued against its effectiveness as a parody. Do I need to go back and quote those posts, or can I trust you to be intellectually honest enough to own up? You know what you were really arguing, and you know that I know it, and you know that I know that you know, and I know that you know that I know. You know?

But just in case you don't know, this is what you said before:

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.

Busted.

Well, there were no pasta religions either, but there are now. I think you do see what I'm pointing out here but are loathe to admit it.

If I agreed with you, I'd be happy to say so.

[quote[Anyway, I'm not interchanging anything with anything. My arguments have been pretty specific: that the FSM was a bad contrast to suggest in the first place - and it was - and that it gets used as a panacea attack on the idea of religion in common practice. There's been nothing on this thread to illustrate otherwise. Neither of those issues conflicts with the facts of the initial intent of the FSM, either. [/quote]

It isn't used as a panacea attack on religion. That's the point you're not getting. This particular thread asks the question of how the FSM is more absurd than Yahweh, and for people who understand that Yahweh is an invention, we understand that they're essentially the same thing. If you think God exists, then you wouldn't think it's as absurd as the FSM. You're right in either case, because neither is an argument in favor of itself.

Well, dogma being central to essentially all religion, this would indeed constitute an attack on God as a concept, which is the same thing for all practical purposes. These firebreaks seem to be artificial. Frankly, the FSM invokes Pastafarianism in practice.

You're quite the linguistic gymnast! Will we be seeing you in London this year?

If dogma is central in "essentially" all religions, then you could say that Pastafarianism is an attack "essentially" on religion, rather than simply dogma (even though it is dogma being attacked, rather than the concept of religion, which does not necessitate dogma). But to then say that Pastafarianism is an attack on the concept of god would be incorrect, because gods do not require religion. Deists, for example, believe in certain concepts of god that do not include any religion. So, to reiterate, Pastafarianism is a parody of religion, not an attack on god.

Nice try, though.

Actually, that would exactly suit our purposes here, since the belief in it is not cynically motivated. There is genuine belief in the above; it therefore would have better suited for Henderson to use Raelianism. Instead, he got creative in a bad way.

Oh, so we're back to admitting that you have a problem with FSM as it was originally intended? Well that certainly makes my past-quote of you above less dramatic.

Anyway, you're wrong, and I suppose I'll have to restate my reasons, since the last effort didn't stick: The parody only works because the device is a known invention. You don't parody McDonalds with Wendy's, you parody McDonalds with McArches, or McGreasy, or anything that makes it not the thing itself but a familiar stand-in.

I don't know where you came up with the idea that FSM being cynically motivated works against it. Cynicism is the source of all parody, chief.

I guess this is the place where I start to tune out your discussion. There's no "typing till you're blue in the face", no misunderstanding - in what possible way does one 'misunderstand' such a simple contrast? - nor much else you allude to in the last paragraph. Is this discussion being furthered by such colouring? What does it help?

I'm wondering the same thing myself, because it's clear you don't quite seem to grasp FSM or Pastafarianism. Or at least that's how it appeared prior to your latest post. The way you tried to connect the pasta religion to an attack on the concept of god seems a very conscious attempt to illustrate a point you know full well to be fallacious. Now I'm wondering if you apparent failure to understand parody is simply another case of you not wanting to admit your point has been defeated. You can continue to act as though you are in the right so long as you act that you don't know you're wrong.

As to how the conversation is furthered by "such coloring" I can only say that you force my hand with your dishonest debating tactics.

And BTW: a bad idea is rendered quickly useless, so 'archaic' is just fine. Bad logic should be archaic. It deserves to be put rapidly in the rear-view mirror.

It's a good attempt at a save, but no.

I know why you get so excited about someone puncturing the FSM but I don't particularly care, since we're all running around treading on each other's sensibilities anyway.

If you had actually punctured the FSM, I would thank you for doing so and compliment you on helping me learn something new. I tend to get a bit misty over Sciforum writers who teach me things, even when those ideas contradict ones I previously held. That's why I pretty much gush over anything Aqueous Id writes, and why Skinwalker was one of my favorite posters, way back when. If you were in the right on this topic, you'd be another one of my heroes here at Sciforums. Alas, you're completely wrong.

Oh, what the hell: You alluded to Raelianism above. Do you not see that this would be a better contrast than an unrooted invention?

How could it possibly be? The FSM is a parody of Intelligent Design. Raelianism, while claiming that we were intelligent designed by aliens, does not make junk scientific claims to support its theory. Instead, the founder claims to have found a crashed spaceship, and an alien inside who gave him the whole story, so it's not any sort of contrast at all for Intelligent Design. Mormonism maybe, but not ID.