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

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wynn, May 7, 2012.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,785
    What does the number of advocates have to do with the truth of a theory?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,122
    No, the problem is the religious literalists trying to shove their child's ball into the science classes of the public education system.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    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.
     
  8. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,785
    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?
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    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.
     
  10. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    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.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    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.
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,440
    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.
     
  13. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,785
    In science it does. That's why we can debate creationists.
     
  14. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    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.
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Right, just as there is only one specific group of theists who advocate the "argument" of any particular deity. So what?

    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 24, 2012
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    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.
     
  17. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    its more what does the (complete) absence of advocates have to do with a theory ....
    :shrug:
     
  18. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I never said you did

    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.


    then you are certainly up to speed with post 313
    :shrug:

    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:
     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    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?
     
  20. spidergoat Venued Serial Memberlist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,785
    Nothing whatsoever!
     
  21. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    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.

    What "general principle" are you referring to?

    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.

    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.
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    You don't find the notion of atheists believing in (a personal) god unusual?

    will the irony never end?



    see first point



    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:



    lol
    More irony ....
    :shrug:
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    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:
     

Share This Page