The reality. - Page 15

**CingularDuality** · 10-31-2007, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Therefore, the complete lack of followers of the FSM is not the cause of his lack of credibility, but merely a symptom of the same. Still, the two effects are distinctly corrollated, and it is in no way fallacious to point to one in support of the other.

I'm not seeing any logic here. Are you suggesting that if, over the next decade, 80% of the world DID start to believe in the FSM, that that would make the judeo-xian god's existence less likely because there are hardly any followers of that religion?

They're certainly not correlated. Belief in something has no impact on its existence.

Switch · 10-31-2007, 10:10 AM

If you'd like I can ask two of my profs (I was a TA for one of em) their views on the heme left in unfossilized bone. They're both paleontologists of one sort or another (there are different kinds...) What I think they will say is that fossilization isn't a single process. There are different types of fossils that are created in very specific environments, and for the most part fossils never form. If this T-rex bone happened to be caught in an environment that successfully cordoned off oxygen (silty mud/clay, tar, etc) its entirely possible that the organic material was simply never acted upon to degrade. While its highly unlikely that you'll find this often, its perfectly likely that an occasional artifact will contain undigested organic matter.

On fossils:
I think there are 3 types of fossils, and I believe only 1 type actually consists of material from the species in question. The other two are mineral deposits shaping themselves in/around decaying matter as to leave something in place of what used to be an actual fossil. In those cases you see no organic residue. In the case of a bone thats been sealed and not chemically degraded and then replaced, its possible to find organics.
This is a generalization though, I've only got minimal training in fossil creation, not a paleo guy or a geologist.

Moreover, if you hold the god is testing us believe, does one then say that 'god slipped up' and forgot to finish forging a fossil in a few instances? The whole idea is ridiculous. There is absolute conclusive truth that the earth is more than 5000 years old, or however long the literal bible claims it is. Anyone who argues this is simply out of touch with biology, physics, chemistry, optics, radiology, etc etc etc modern science.

Kerostasis · 10-31-2007, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Therefore, the complete lack of followers of the FSM is not the cause of his lack of credibility, but merely a symptom of the same. Still, the two effects are distinctly corrollated, and it is in no way fallacious to point to one in support of the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I'm not seeing any logic here. Are you suggesting that if, over the next decade, 80% of the world DID start to believe in the FSM, that that would make the judeo-xian god's existence less likely because there are hardly any followers of that religion?

They're certainly not correlated. Belief in something has no impact on its existence.

You're not seeing any logic because for some inexplicable reason you insist on looking only at the summary while ignoring the actual explanation of the logic. So rather than explaining the logic in brand new terms again, I'm going to point to where the logic was explained in detail in the last post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I do not disbelieve the FSM because he lacks followers. I disbelieve the FSM because, after examining the theology ascribed to him, I find that theology wholly lacking in validity.

However, as I expect you to dissect and attack every word of any explanation I might put forth as to why I reached that conclusion, I point instead to a simple litmus test -- Many intelligent people have seen the teachings of the FSM before you and I, and every single one has reached the same conclusion. Every single one has decided they are bogus, including you yourself. There have been no exceptions.

This is completely incompatible with the various straw-man arguments you ascribe to me, so please, quit doing that.

bkelly · 10-31-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bkelly

Last edited by CingularDuality : 10-31-2007 at 04:06 AM.

My thanks for the link fix Cingular.

bkelly

Switch · 10-31-2007, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch

First, stop arguing about the FSM. Its a parody religion meant as satire to draw attention to how ridiculous the debate about evolution and ID is. It has served its purpose. It wasn't created to debate the existence of god, only to point out the ridiculous argument that ID is somehow of equal scientific relevance to evolution.

Enough with the FSM... its a joke meant to keep idiots busy.
Some of you are very busy arguing against FSM.

Kerostasis · 10-31-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch

Enough with the FSM... its a joke meant to keep idiots busy.
Some of you are very busy arguing against FSM.

Don't forget "for"! There's just as many wasting time arguing "for" the FSM, otherwise we wouldn't have this problem at all.

**ednos** · 10-31-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requital

The reason that I take Jesus's reference for "absolute historical truth of the story", Jesus claimed to be God and referenced the story of Jonah as a historical truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Requital

When you say no, what are you saying no to? Jesus claim to be God, or Jonah being in a fish?

Neither. I'm saying "no" to "referenced to the story ... as a historical truth", which you fail to verify.

**ednos** · 10-31-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Don't forget "for"! There's just as many wasting time arguing "for" the FSM, otherwise we wouldn't have this problem at all.

No one argues *for* the Flying Spaghetti Monster. All of the pastafarians are *joking*.

**CingularDuality** · 10-31-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

This is completely incompatible with the various straw-man arguments you ascribe to me, so please, quit doing that.

Dude, you're the one that came up with the whole FSM=zero believers/God=millions of believers argument to show that the judeo-xian god is more plausible than the FSM. And you're still insisting that the number of believers correlates to the possibility of the existence of a higher power. This is absurd and I'd just like you to concede it.

And who is arguing for the FSM? Are you talking about when I say god and the FSM are equally likely to exist? If so, you're a funny man.

SmokingTarpan · 10-31-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

It wasn't that long... But ok, I'll take your word for it that you simply failed to notice the relevance of my clarification of position rather than intentionally choosing the wording that seemed easiest to attack.

Sometimes I'll cut a two-sentence post to one sentence to save length. Doesn't make any real sense, but I do it. In the case of quoting you, though, it was only partially for length. I read through what you said was a clarification of your position, and it truly seemed simply to me more of the same bad argument, just from perhaps a slightly different angle.

Quote:

I shall make one more attempt to clarify my argument against the FSM. I do not disbelieve the FSM because he lacks followers. I disbelieve the FSM because, after examining the theology ascribed to him, I find that theology wholly lacking in validity.

This is the same reason that I don't believe in your God. I find... problems... with the underlying tenets of Christianity, and many other prominent world religions. Numbers have nothing to do with it. And, for the record, I was baptized and raised (though not very strictly) Catholic. I came to my current set of beliefs after time and intellect- note this is not to say religious people are dumb.

Quote:

I point instead to a simple litmus test -- Many intelligent people have seen the teachings of the FSM before you and I, and every single one has reached the same conclusion. Every single one has decided they are bogus, including you yourself. There have been no exceptions.

That's not to say, though, that zero people believe. I certainly haven't talked to everyone.

. If I could find a single believer, does that change your view or mine on any deity we deem false? I'd hope not. And, even if we queried every single person on the planet and not a single one believed in a deity, does that mean said deity doesn't actually exist? I say no, as have you. That's a prime reason why I say let's get away from the numbers game as having relevance one way or another. When it comes to proving or disproving a higher power- something unknowable and intangible- that higher power will exist or not exist whether the followers number All or Zero.

Quote:

Invoking the name of Zeus has no impact on this argument, because regardless of what period of history you choose to examine, this pattern has not been observed with regard to either Zeus or my God. Many were told of Zeus and believed, and many others were told of Zeus and chose not to believe. In the current day those who believe are (to the best of my knowledge) now extinct, but there were certainly those who believed in the past, which is more than the FSM can boast of. Similarly, many were told of my God and believed, and many were told of him and did not believe. Even if you could point to a period before any were told of my God to begin with (which isn't as easy as you seem to believe, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument), that would not be evidence against the credibility of the story itself, for who can be blamed for not believing a story which he has not heard? It is those who have heard and rejected the story that we are interested in.

My interjection of Zeus and other past believed deities was simply an attempt to example actual beliefs with regards to numbers and your logic and get away from the FSM; it's very clear you have a huge distaste for that particular fake deity. And I think it's not just the ones that have rejected the story of a deity that we're interested in, but also those who have accepted.

Quote:

Therefore, the complete lack of followers of the FSM is not the cause of his lack of credibility, but merely a symptom of the same. Still, the two effects are distinctly corrollated, and it is in no way fallacious to point to one in support of the other.

Well, I think it's one thing to say, "X doesn't exist because X has no followers," and another to say, "X has no followers because X doesn't exist." So, first, I've taken your arguments to mean the former, which I'm now more clear on. My thanks.

With regard to the latter, though, I'll again refer you to my assertion that, because we're human and fallible (especially with regard to deities), we can't know for certain that X does or does not actually exist. The statement could be correct. It could also be gravely wrong, as both you and I have asserted that the actual existence of a deity is completely independent of belief in that deity's existence. You could die and show up to see the Purple Elephant Monkey send you back to earth as a Peanana (Peanut + Banana, eh? eh?). I could die and see God shaking his head just before tossing me to Hell.

Kerostasis · 10-31-2007, 05:42 PM

@Cingular -- SmokingTarpan's reply is much closer to my line of reasoning than yours is. Therefore I hope you won't mind when I respond to him instead of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

With regard to the latter, though ["X has no followers because X doesn't exist"], I'll again refer you to my assertion that, because we're human and fallible (especially with regard to deities), we can't know for certain that X does or does not actually exist. The statement could be correct. It could also be gravely wrong, as both you and I have asserted that the actual existence of a deity is completely independent of belief in that deity's existence. You could die and show up to see the Purple Elephant Monkey send you back to earth as a Peanana (Peanut + Banana, eh? eh?). I could die and see God shaking his head just before tossing me to Hell.

I'll grant you that we can never be completely certain about the divine until after death. That said, I do believe we can learn enough about the divine to give us better than just a blind guess. I think we can approach a reasonable level of confidence in certain aspects of God's existence given the information we have available to work with. Which doesn't necessarily mean that the answers to those aspects are those preached by any particular church...see below. Meanwhile, other aspects of God are likely to remain mysteries as long as we live -- I have no illusions that we can ever fully understand him. So I just seek to understand as much as is possible for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

This is the same reason that I don't believe in your God. I find... problems... with the underlying tenets of Christianity, and many other prominent world religions. Numbers have nothing to do with it. And, for the record, I was baptized and raised (though not very strictly) Catholic. I came to my current set of beliefs after time and intellect- note this is not to say religious people are dumb.

I feel like I hear this a lot from ex-Catholics. For the record, I have quite a few disagreements with the Catholic belief-system myself. I suppose it would be overly optimistic to hope that all of your problems with Christianity are just those things that Catholics believe and Protestants don't -- that would be way too easy. However, of all the hundreds of things that we Christians believe, most are relatively unimportant interpretations, and only a handful are truly significant "underlying tenets". So if you don't mind me asking, what major underlying tenets of Christianity do you take issue with?

SmokingTarpan · 10-31-2007, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I feel like I hear this a lot from ex-Catholics. For the record, I have quite a few disagreements with the Catholic belief-system myself. I suppose it would be overly optimistic to hope that all of your problems with Christianity are just those things that Catholics believe and Protestants don't -- that would be way too easy. However, of all the hundreds of things that we Christians believe, most are relatively unimportant interpretations, and only a handful are truly significant "underlying tenets". So if you don't mind me asking, what major underlying tenets of Christianity do you take issue with?

Well, I personally don't consider myself "ex-Catholic"- except in the most literal sense that a choice was made for me and when I was old enough to start thinking for myself I chose differently. I was baptized Catholic and had to go to church with my grandparents on Sunday nights/mornings. I was never confirmed (the only reason I thought about doing that was because I found out you get gifts afterward, which I realized was a pretty dumb reason to do it), and was done going to church around 10 or so. For a while I was Atheist until later through my college years I found the belief system that I follow now.

As for the tenets I take issue with, they're numerous. I see contradictions in the Bible (which I believe is merely a man-designed tool to conform society to a set of morals than the history/word of God), wide corruption in the priest caste, and a moral base that's ever-changing to reflect the society of the day.

More importantly, the following argument.

Assertions by Christian Theists
- God is all Good.
- God is all Powerful.
- God determines what is Good and Evil.
- God gave man Free Will.
- Free Will allows man to choose to obey or disobey God
- Obeying God is Good.
- Disobeying God is Evil.

Premises
- Because God is all Good, God would not create anything that contains Evil.
- Because God is all Powerful, God is capable of creating Free Will that is absent of Evil.
- Because actions are taken that are contrary to God's definition of Good, Evil exists.
- Because God is all Good, God did not introduce Evil.
- Because God did not introduce Evil, man introduced Evil to the world by using Free Will and choosing to disobey God.

Conclusions
- God is incapable of creating Free Will that is absent of Evil, therefore God is not All Powerful.
- God is capable of Creating Free Will that is absent of Evil but did not, therefore God is not All Good.

I realize that my premises may not be worded or ordered exactly right; it's been a long time since my philosophy classes. The short version: Because God is All Powerful and All Good, God is not only capable of creating Free Will absent Evil, but would be required to do so. But Christians claim that Evil exists because of Free Will. Thus, either God isn't All Powerful or God isn't All Good (or both). Either one of these conclusions directly contradicts Christian theology.

Kerostasis · 10-31-2007, 08:05 PM

Ooh, impressive. Let me ponder that logic for a bit and then get back to you.

**CingularDuality** · 11-01-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

@Cingular -- SmokingTarpan's reply is much closer to my line of reasoning than yours is. Therefore I hope you won't mind when I respond to him instead of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Well, I think it's one thing to say, "X doesn't exist because X has no followers," and another to say, "X has no followers because X doesn't exist." So, first, I've taken your arguments to mean the former, which I'm now more clear on. My thanks.

It's clear to me now, too. Why didn't you just say that to begin with?

Kerostasis · 11-01-2007, 02:09 AM

>.>

I did.

Repeatedly.

10-31-2007, 10:10 AM	#212 (permalink)
Switch Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: NJ Posts: 1,238	Re: The reality. If you'd like I can ask two of my profs (I was a TA for one of em) their views on the heme left in unfossilized bone. They're both paleontologists of one sort or another (there are different kinds...) What I think they will say is that fossilization isn't a single process. There are different types of fossils that are created in very specific environments, and for the most part fossils never form. If this T-rex bone happened to be caught in an environment that successfully cordoned off oxygen (silty mud/clay, tar, etc) its entirely possible that the organic material was simply never acted upon to degrade. While its highly unlikely that you'll find this often, its perfectly likely that an occasional artifact will contain undigested organic matter. On fossils: I think there are 3 types of fossils, and I believe only 1 type actually consists of material from the species in question. The other two are mineral deposits shaping themselves in/around decaying matter as to leave something in place of what used to be an actual fossil. In those cases you see no organic residue. In the case of a bone thats been sealed and not chemically degraded and then replaced, its possible to find organics. This is a generalization though, I've only got minimal training in fossil creation, not a paleo guy or a geologist. Moreover, if you hold the god is testing us believe, does one then say that 'god slipped up' and forgot to finish forging a fossil in a few instances? The whole idea is ridiculous. There is absolute conclusive truth that the earth is more than 5000 years old, or however long the literal bible claims it is. Anyone who argues this is simply out of touch with biology, physics, chemistry, optics, radiology, etc etc etc modern science. __________________ \|TG\|Switch Better known as: That noob who crashed the chopper. That noob who ran over the mine. That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle. That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC... Last edited by Switch; 10-31-2007 at 11:10 AM.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links