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

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's precisely the point. If we're going to say the FSM is "obviously" fake because of how absurd it is, then one can't reject the same argument when applied to God. The argument and "evidence" for God is the Bible, and the Bible is full of absurdities, such as the earth ceasing to turn (though it is portrayed from the geocentric viewpoint of the sun stopping in the sky, another glaring mark against the text), the red sea parting at command, and God communicating through a bush set ablaze (if they were hearing voices, I have to wonder just what kind of bush they were burning). These things are objectively ridiculous. You may say that they're not ridiculous because they are the inspired word of God, but then I could say the same thing about FSM.

Can't have it both ways, Geoffers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If it's fake right off the bat, it's falsified. Or is it even so much as falsified? I couldn't propose in a meeting that the reason the DRD7 coefficients were so funky between samples was that the Great Pink Unicorn was doing it, and then say "Naw, I'm just. Funnin' ya. Or not. Not." Admittedly, Henderson would have had a tough time against my threshold proposing anything, since he's doing it as a parody. He clearly doesn't believe any of it, and he could no more believe in unicorns or Poseidon or Dagon than he could in the FSM at the point of proposition. Still, I think it would have been a more appropriate contrast because it once had societal legitimacy; and it would have been poignant, too, for the same reason. Here yesterday, gone today.

It's falsified by natural evidence: it was fake. Otherwise everything reduces to "this is so because I say it is". So as a concept...no. It is my position that the FSM cheapens the whole discussion. Why, to this day, I can't eat spaghetti.

Ye-es, but we know empirically that it's a crock. Look, if I dug out the Bible faker from somewhere BC (or BCE if we absolutely must

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

uke

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and held him as having just invented the whole thing, then we could say that all of Abrahamism was false. This would seem to be a reasonable empirical rejection; at least of that group of religions, anyway.

Interesting sort of slight: I've known exactly what it means throughout and my position hasn't changed. So what you're effectively saying is that I always did know. Thankyou for playing.

????

NO. Do you?

Look, the evidence is that the FSM was fake. Now, if you came up to me and said "Hey I have a new religion based on a being from an alternate universe that speaks to me inside my head, and he wants cash and strippers", I'd say well, maybe. I couldn't prove it either way; I'd be unlikely to alter school curriculum for him in any event, but I couldn't also say "Oh yeah? Well the deity I just made up says your deity is crap nyah nyah nyah" (which is the point of the OP question; the relative likelihood of deities). I can't speak to the reality of the deity supposedly in his head.

We brutally suppress FSMologists in East Korea. And Mormons.

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

We could speculate anything, sure. But we'd have to do so honestly. If we're talking crap and we know we're talking crap, and we actually say so, then it isn't the same. In the case where we honestly believe the unprovable, then it's "your way to you and mine to me". That's NOMA. And I know that for a fact because the great Myuu told me so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hate sauce lite on my SF moniker: better taste, less filling.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Temper temper.

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

Next time you want to convince me of the equal absurdity of two unevidenced propositions, don't make the mistake of having one that's made up from the get-go.

 

that is bizzare , god has a history , fsm is created on a whim as a comparison

look using the bible as an argument against god can be at times seem unreasonable

but the bible is not where we should be looking for evidence of god

 

Because you are told so. Primarily from a book that also contains passages of men hung like donkeys, etc.

well put it this way I have never read the bible , but I'm thinking of doing so now

not because I believe in god , but because there is more in there than we know about our Ancient past

 

No, he didn't. He's never said it's fake. In fact, he makes claims to the contrary. That's the point, Geoffrey of Chaucer! It's our word against his, and his claims are unfalsifiable. You don't "know" it's fake any more than we "know" Christianity is fake. You simply assume it's fake based on the absurdity of the claims...just like we do about Christianity!

They're both made up from the get-go.

 

far from it

Ra was a god , literally

treated as gods because the Pharaohs were the go between , god and the people

look you have to back even further than Egyptian history

 

what I have learned from my reading so far , is that , the bible is really the condencing of Ancient History

before the bible , there were gods , not monotheism that the bible presents

 

the Ancient History of Sumer

 

Do you want to stand by that statement or do you want to pretend that you didn't make it as you scurry back behind a weaker stance of atheism?

 

My stance has always been that the monotheistic religions are scams, rackets, and lies. I've never said otherwise, and I've said exactly that many times. You misrepresent me when you suggest otherwise.

As to the atheism bit, I can only assume you're going to assert your own incorrect definition of the concept? Just like Wynn and Jan? The Holy Trinity, as it were.

 

agreed

and they never encourage these christians to dig deeper into what was behind all this monotheism

because if they did christianity would fall flat

 

No it wouldn't.

 

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"

 

Then prove it is false... that the FSM categorically and absolutely does not exist... that the FSM did not plant the seed of His existence into the head of Henderson, such that Henderson wrote it out as though he was merely arriving at a concept, the FSM knowing that in 2,000 years His will be the dominant religion.
Prove it.

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.

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.
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.

Nope. The evidence you have so far brought to the table (i.e. that Henderson appears to have made up the concept) can only point to what Henderson thinks about the situation - not about the reality of the situation.
Henderson does not define reality.

No it doesn't. That is what you are insisting upon with your belief that "Henderson says it is false therefore it is false".
Henderson can not falsify the FSM - he can only say what he considers the situation to be.

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

Nope. As above.

No we couldn't. Unless there are observations that actually falsify (i.e. fall outside) the results expected by the concept. Someone believing and claiming to have made it up is not outside the scope of results expected by the concept.

But this is a matter of belief and what one considers reasonable or not to believe. That is a separate issue entirely to whether a concept is, at its core, falsifiable.
You would know this if you knew what it meant for a concept / theory / claim to be falsifiable or not.

Then your position, for as long as it has remained unchanged, is wrong. This is not a question of subjectivity. You simply do not adequately understand what it means for a concept/theory/claim to be falsifiable or not.

No - but I couldn't be sure from the way you seem to misunderstand the concept of falsifiability. So was just checking.

The evidence is that Henderson arrived at a concept of the FSM to argue a point.
There is simply no evidence that the FSM categorically does not exist. The same way that there is simply no evidence that any other unfalsifiable concept does not exist.

If you think otherwise, just start with what should be the relatively simple task of proving that the FSM did not plant the seed of the idea of His existence in the head of Henderson and guided his thoughts to the concept of the FSM.

Nor can you speak to the reality of the deity that Henderson supposedly made up:

If the FSM does not exist we would expect Henderson to say that he made the concept up.

But ir the FSM does exist and planted the seed in Henderson's head then we might still expect Henderson to say that he made the concept up.

From this we can show that the observation of Henderson saying he made it up does NOT falsify the concept - as the same observation would be expected whether the FSM existed or not.
I.e. the FSM is an unfalsifiable concept.
Period.
Live with it.
And for the sake of everyone else here... please go and learn what it means for something to be falsifiable. Please. You keep saying you do. And I want to believe that you do. But you constantly remind everyone that you don't.

 

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.

No, I gather that it's a load of hoo-haw from his initial invention and submission and, you know, reality. I'm going to borrow from Tiassa here: c'mon, seriously now. 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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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