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

[river]

“ Originally Posted by river
it should though

a quote from the book " The Stairway to Heaven " of The Earth Chronicles series by Zecharia Sitchin, pg117 ;

" Let it be clarified here that neither the Akkadians nor the Sumerians had called these visitors to Earth gods. It is through later paganism that the notion of devine beings or gods has filtered into our language and thinking. When we employ the term here , it is only because of its general acceptance and usage that we do so"

Note that this is your last Zecharia Sitchin reference before going on my ignore list. Congratulations, and goodbye forever!

what is your problem with guy , he is very through , very through and has done 30 yrs of research into our Ancient past

why the flippant ignor list ?

[Balerion]

Noo, they aren't. He wrote the thing as a tongue-in-cheek response, and you know he did, and I know he did. Wasn't it you accusing me of intellectual dishonesty a few posts back? For shame, doc. Huntin' elephants with a rabbit gun.

Yes I did accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, and justifiably so. I repeat that accusation here and now for this knowingly dishonest position that you're taking here, which is the circular "We know it's fake because we know it's fake."

No, I gather that it's a load of hoo-haw from his initial invention and submission and, you know, reality.

No no, you're assuming it's an invention. "I gather that's fake because it's fake" is not an argument. You are basing your opinion on the absurdity of its claims. Just admit it. I don't enjoy watching you squirm like this.

I'm going to borrow from Tiassa here: c'mon, seriously now.

That's not an argument, Geoff.

As for its claims, I have only the scantest knowledge and even less interest, because the initial premise was fallacious. I know this. You know this.

The absurdity of the creature itself, then. A spaghetti and meatballs monster. That's your basis for unbelief. Logically, you can't know something is fake because you know it's fake; that's circular, and doesn't work. There must have been something else that made this being an obvious parody. And what else is there besides the absurdity of the monster and its claims?

Look, I'd be happy really pretend that it's all one and just go along with the get-along gang on this one. It would save time. Unfortunately, much as I love sarcasm, I can't get my ticket for the crazy train punched. Maybe it's that mean thing I said about Ozzy back in '89. Maybe he really didn't know the bat was fake. Maybe. How could I possibly prove that he really thought a real, hairy, struggling bat was actually a rubber bat? How shall I tell in practice the difference between shit and sugar? It is a mystery.

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel! You know, I take it back: This is fun!

Well, I know the FSM is, at least. If you have some evidence of the other, that would actually be a debate, or something. Although, I have to tell you, I don't know how you're going to swing something as powerfully con as having made the thing up right off the bat. But whatever.

This dishonesty is disappointing, Geoffrey. It's not surprising, but it is disappointing. But the fact that you'd reduce yourself to such circular arguments and non-sequiturs just so you wouldn't have to admit that you are on the wrong end of this argument does swell my chest a bit. Watching a smart guy employ the arguments of a stupid guy all because he couldn't defeat my points is a great threat to my modesty.

[Balerion]

Whoops. Cat's out of the bag, there.

It's never been a secret.

[river]

JDawg

you call someone dishonest

yet you have never read anything by Zecharia , yet dismiss him

your dishonest

[GeoffP]

Then prove it is false...

Done and done. Your post makes me wonder: is there any situation at all in which ad hominem, alone, makes an argument?

Prove it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Oh, right... you're bringing to the table evidence that actually fits in with the allowed observations of the claim (that the FSM exists), and thus not actually falsifying it.

No, Henderson was good enough to do that at the outset. Didn't leave me a whole lot to work with. Sort of upsetting. I'm trying to get over it. I know I can count on your support.

I liked that one, though: bringing to the table evidence that actually fits in with the allowed observations of the claim... by actually not existing. Cunning! Damn the ethics, full arguments ahead.

But you know what it means for something to be falsifiable. Clearly. I mean, it's not as though you have spent the last FSM-knows how many posts in this thread demonstrating the exact opposite.

Ha!: yes, the exact opposite. Right, right. Naturalistic evidence? Well, that might be fancy enough fer your paper-writin', but we don't cotton to that around these parts, Geoff. My deliberately false postulations is as good as any unfalsifiable theory-makin'!

But you say you are familiar with the concept, through your work. So therefore you must be believed.
Or is that an Appeal to Authority? Oh, yes, it is. My mistake.
Let's just judge peoples' understanding on how they use it - and in that you are found woefully lacking.

Why, heck... you know how to use logical fallacy too! Your arguments just must be correct, because you can't string two posts together without making the same assertion at least twise. It's not possible in your mind for people to disagree with you: they must inherently be stupid. I see. So that'll be a proof by assertion with an ipse dixit over a not invented here with a side order of ad hominem.

You want fries with that?

Henderson does not define reality.

Neither, thank Myuu, do you. But unfortunately Henderson's proposition was false from the start, soo....

Irrelevant to the issue.
Falsifiability is not governed by whether it cheapens a discussion.

Sigh... you're actually right here: this wasn't the central issue. Do you know the difference?

I canned most of the rest of your post, because it was probably the same tripe. Step back, take a breath, and try to figure out the difference between speculation and naturalistic support.

And, no matter what they tell you, don't drink the koolaid.

[spidergoat]

The FSM is absurd as a deity because the author done tol' us it were so.

He could be wrong.

I mean, we know Joseph Smith was a fraud, but that doesn't disprove Mormonism.

[GeoffP]

It's never been a secret.

Well then, you're a fixed feature on the other side, JDawg. You have taken a position, and it's not unlike the reverse of that which a theist would take on this issue. There are better selections; but the way in which my modest proposal was received is a little worrisome.

[Balerion]

Well then, you're a fixed feature on the other side, JDawg. You have taken a position, and it's not unlike the reverse of that which a theist would take on this issue. There are better selections; but the way in which my modest proposal was received is a little worrisome.

It's nothing like the position a theist would take. My opinion is based on evidence, theirs is based on faith.

It is telling that you're trying to use my atheism as a way out of the debate. I could go on about how pathetic such a tactic is, but it speaks well enough for itself, and plenty of people will read it and cringe, and that's enough for me.

[gmilam]

He could be wrong.

I mean, we know Joseph Smith was a fraud, but that doesn't disprove Mormonism.

Joseph Smith was confused. The angel he called Moroni was actually sent by the FSM. His real name was Macaroni.

[GeoffP]

He could be wrong.

I mean, we know Joseph Smith was a fraud, but that doesn't disprove Mormonism.

... wellll... kinda does, though...

In point of fact, I don't know whether anyone's proven that the gold Bibles or whatever the hell it was he apparently dug up were definitively proven as fakes, simply because I don't follow it. I mean, personally I think it's a crock, but I haven't investigated in any way. But I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out it was Smith's handwriting or something, and I think one would be justified in using such naturalistic evidence as reasons to reject their claims. I don't think this is unreasonable.

If I propose a hypothesis, I have to reject it at some basic threshold of significance, right? Conventionally we select 5%, because many statisticians are assholes. Based on relative distributions, we accept or reject differences in means between two things. I can't really functionally argue that I don't know if the test comes back at P = 0.45. Sure, I can only reject at that level of significance... but in Henderson's case we know he wrote it for the purposes of parody and sarcasm. This, to me, is invalidation of the evidence from the start.

Anyway, I think I'm done. Thanks for the polite discussion, SG, and also JDawg at intervals.

[Gustav]

i think it is likely we will evolve to be godlike in nature
semolina on the other hand is problematic

[Sarkus]

Done and done.

I've tried.
You insist on holding intent to be a falsifier.
It isn't. But you would know that if you knew what falsifiability actually meant.

I've performed triage on the rest of your post and, due to your continuing ignorance of the concept of falsifiability, have deemed it worthless.

If there were any salient nuggets, perhaps you'd like to unentwine them from the misunderstanding of falsifiability that permeates your responses.

[GeoffP]

It's nothing like the position a theist would take. My opinion is based on evidence, theirs is based on faith.

Your evidence that God doesn't exist? Good on you. I'm sure that Nobel will roll in any day now.

It is telling that you're trying to use my atheism as a way out of the debate. I could go on about how pathetic such a tactic is, but it speaks well enough for itself, and plenty of people will read it and cringe, and that's enough for me.

Clearly it isn't, or you wouldn't write back. Frankly, I'm exiting because Sarkus has dealt in little except baseless accusations, and you look for any excuse to do the same because of an atheistic chip on your shoulder, and I'm not wasting more time dealing with the intractable here. Are you going to change your opinion? No? Well, it's difficult to imagine how you could possibly convince me that black is white on this thread. So, you carry on with your faith-based approach and I'll work on evidence, which is what I should have stuck with personally from the start; that is, getting actual work done rather than this pointless jousting.

In short: you're a waste of my time on this issue.

[spidergoat]

Theories must be considered apart from their source, that's how science works.

[Sarkus]

Frankly, I'm exiting because Sarkus has dealt in little except baseless accusations...

Baseless accusations?
I have certainly accused you (and continue to do so) of not understanding what "falsifiability" means - but it is far from baseless.
You misunderstand the concept. Period. You keep saying you do understand it and then contradict yourself almost immediately by demonstrating your lack of understanding.

If you refer to other accusations then you'll need to remind me what they are.

[Emil]

We brutally suppress FSMologists in East Korea. And Mormons.

It's strict ancestor worship or orthodox Myuunitarianism for us, all day, every day.

Whoops ... you're right. Forget FSM.
Myuunitarianism all day, every day !

[river]

Theories must be considered apart from their source, that's how science works.

exactly

and thats why Zecharia Sitchin is a very good source on Ancient History

take or leave it but at least read his theories before being critical of them

[river]

just to add

Zecharia has 6 books just dedicated to our , our Human Ancient past

now if that is not worth reading ....... where are we as far learning about the truth of gods , no matter what the bible says ?

nowhere , because all we have is the bible to rely on

yet the bible is so lacking in detailed info its a crime really

[GeoffP]

Yes I did accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, and justifiably so.

Well, that latter part is factually incorrect, and you know that it is. I've come across some unscrupulous arguments before, but wow.

No no, you're assuming it's an invention.

No no, it's sheer invention, as you know perfectly well.

That's not an argument, Geoff.

Of course not. It's a statement of sheerest fact. As we speak of intellectual dishonesty, we have you pretending that the FSM really wasn't just a thought experiment on paper, or that my objections are about "the absurdity of the creature itself", below, which has had no bearing at all on the discussion other than your injection herein:

The absurdity of the creature itself, then. A spaghetti and meatballs monster. That's your basis for unbelief.

That is about the most abject misrepresentation I've seen so far on this board. I can see why you want me to be interested in the characteristics of the FSM as written: now all you have to do is show where I was so interested. Fire away; or just edit this point out, or misdirect, or whatever the next move is.

Logically, you can't know something is fake because you know it's fake; that's circular, and doesn't work. There must have been something else that made this being an obvious parody. And what else is there besides the absurdity of the monster and its claims?

I don't know. What is it you think is absurd about the monster and its claims? What is it about your own position that you feel is incorrect or intellectually dishonest? You seem to be trying to get some kind of large, weighty point out. Might I suggest a laxative?

You are twisting yourself into a pretzel! You know, I take it back: This is fun!

Yes, my angst was clearly staggering, there.

Watching a smart guy employ the arguments of a stupid guy all because he couldn't defeat my points is a great threat to my modesty.

Oh? Which points did I not defeat?

[wynn]

Really.

I mean how hard is it to get that someone is hung like a donkey and ejaculates like a horse?

And then of course we have things such as this:

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.

[Genesis 2:19-]

No, really?

It takes a lot to "grasp" this?

Really?

How about some wife sharing?

“This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”

[2 Samuel 12:11-]

I wonder what god was trying to say with that comment? "Artistic license" perhaps, as one has tried to claim?

Please, the whole 'God works in mysterious ways' stuff doesn't fly. And if it does fly, then so it should with FSM.

That is what some are not getting in this thread.

I don't share your obsession with the Bible.