Pastafarianism [modified]
-
Well, fine, pastafarianism has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is not a means of establishing the equality of religions so much as it is a means of establishing the supremacy of humanism. If all religions are equal, then some other more binding means of social organization must exist to ensure that relgions are, in fact, equal and remain so. Gee, I wonder what it might be?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine, pastafarianism has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is not a means of establishing the equality of religions so much as it is a means of establishing the supremacy of humanism.
I've never really thought of it that way. To me, it's quite simply about pointing out the absurdity of believing in (or arguing about) something that cannot be proven or disproven. However, it's worth noting that I don't find that discussion in the slightest bit interesting.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If all religions are equal, then some other more binding means of social organization must exist to ensure that relgions are, in fact, equal and remain so. Gee, I wonder what it might be?
Diversity. When a large plurality of viewpoints on something exist, and none are institutionally promoted by a State of any sort, the only inequality that can arise is social, not political. Any good religious idea, if it is to be extended to the political realm, would probably have objectively positive arguments in its favor that don't require resting on the tenets of the religion to support it - like, for example, not killing your neighbor. Or donating to charity. The whole purpose of the Enlightenment was precisely to discover those arguments and not rely on "because God says so" as a reason to do good things. While political and social institutions may have some overlap, to conflate one with the existence of the other is intellectually lazy. All government need do is refuse to endorse or support, in any way, any of the plurality.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Might want to send your wife here: To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to "BTQ Abuse." To be fair the New Oxford Dictionary of English, says the meaning that you think it has acquired is “widely accepted in modern standard English”. I wouldn’t go so far myself. Nor would most dictionaries. Because of possible confusion over what you actually mean, and inevitable condemnation from people who have the education to know what it means, this new definition is better avoided altogether or left outside to play with "ain't" and "for sure."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
If you want to get pedantic about it: a form of logical fallacy in which an argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. is precisely the sense I meant it even if not stated very precisely. There is an underlieing assumption that while religions might be equal, some other means of judgeing that equality must exist. If not, how could we know they are equal? Do the religions themselves say they are equal? There is an assumption that it is true that religions are equal and it is that assumption that I was trying to get at. Where is the evidence that they are equal? Who is the judge of that? But to get there I wanted to first establish that the source of the assumption is, in fact, the very state based institutions which are bound by the first amendment to not address such issues. In fact, the whole post begs an entire host of questions. Still, it is a subjective distinction. A statement which merely raises a question for you, can certainly beg a question for someone else. It all depends upon your unique and compltely unequal intellectual perspective.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, fine, pastafarianism has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It is not a means of establishing the equality of religions so much as it is a means of establishing the supremacy of humanism.
I've never really thought of it that way. To me, it's quite simply about pointing out the absurdity of believing in (or arguing about) something that cannot be proven or disproven. However, it's worth noting that I don't find that discussion in the slightest bit interesting.
Stan Shannon wrote:
If all religions are equal, then some other more binding means of social organization must exist to ensure that relgions are, in fact, equal and remain so. Gee, I wonder what it might be?
Diversity. When a large plurality of viewpoints on something exist, and none are institutionally promoted by a State of any sort, the only inequality that can arise is social, not political. Any good religious idea, if it is to be extended to the political realm, would probably have objectively positive arguments in its favor that don't require resting on the tenets of the religion to support it - like, for example, not killing your neighbor. Or donating to charity. The whole purpose of the Enlightenment was precisely to discover those arguments and not rely on "because God says so" as a reason to do good things. While political and social institutions may have some overlap, to conflate one with the existence of the other is intellectually lazy. All government need do is refuse to endorse or support, in any way, any of the plurality.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Diversity. When a large plurality of viewpoints on something exist, and none are institutionally promoted by a State of any sort, the only inequality that can arise is social, not political. Any good religious idea, if it is to be extended to the political realm, would probably have objectively positive arguments in its favor that don't require resting on the tenets of the religion to support it - like, for example, not killing your neighbor.
Is diversity not institutionally promoted by the state?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
If you want to get pedantic about it: a form of logical fallacy in which an argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. is precisely the sense I meant it even if not stated very precisely. There is an underlieing assumption that while religions might be equal, some other means of judgeing that equality must exist. If not, how could we know they are equal? Do the religions themselves say they are equal? There is an assumption that it is true that religions are equal and it is that assumption that I was trying to get at. Where is the evidence that they are equal? Who is the judge of that? But to get there I wanted to first establish that the source of the assumption is, in fact, the very state based institutions which are bound by the first amendment to not address such issues. In fact, the whole post begs an entire host of questions. Still, it is a subjective distinction. A statement which merely raises a question for you, can certainly beg a question for someone else. It all depends upon your unique and compltely unequal intellectual perspective.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
is precisely the sense I meant it even if not stated very precisely. There is an underlieing assumption that while religions might be equal, some other means of judgeing that equality must exist. If not, how could we know they are equal? Do the religions themselves say they are equal? There is an assumption that it is true that religions are equal and it is that assumption that I was trying to get at. Where is the evidence that they are equal? Who is the judge of that?
You really don't get it, do you?
Stan Shannon wrote:
compltely unequal intellectual perspective
I'd say you definitely proved that we are intellectually unequal.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Thomas Stockwell wrote:
but if you just take some of the reasons for why the religion was first formed then I believe that it is a good source (and mild comic relief)
Yes, because obviously Christians deserve no sort of respect. I mean, its not like they are gay or black or something - you know, people deserving of not being made fun of. I am happy to see that modern children are being indoctrinated so completely into humanist theology.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, because obviously Christians deserve no sort of respect.
Simply for claiming to be members of a religious sect? Of course not. Respect is reserved for those doing something to earn it. If they behave themselves, christians deserve only tolerance, something many of them are pretty stingy with.
2 75 22 6
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
is precisely the sense I meant it even if not stated very precisely. There is an underlieing assumption that while religions might be equal, some other means of judgeing that equality must exist. If not, how could we know they are equal? Do the religions themselves say they are equal? There is an assumption that it is true that religions are equal and it is that assumption that I was trying to get at. Where is the evidence that they are equal? Who is the judge of that?
You really don't get it, do you?
Stan Shannon wrote:
compltely unequal intellectual perspective
I'd say you definitely proved that we are intellectually unequal.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I get it perfectly. At some point in your life you happened to read a definition of 'begging the question'. From then on, any time someone you disagreed with about something used that term, you have criticized them for using it inappropriately. My use of the term was perfectly appropriate. I believe that the sentiments expressed represent logical fallacies inherent in modern liberalism which most certainly beg the question.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
I get it perfectly. At some point in your life you happened to read a definition of 'begging the question'. From then on, any time someone you disagreed with about something used that term, you have criticized them for using it inappropriately. My use of the term was perfectly appropriate. I believe that the sentiments expressed represent logical fallacies inherent in modern liberalism which most certainly beg the question.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
At some point in your life you happened to read a definition of 'begging the question'
Absolutely right - Do you prefer holding books up to your temple and hoping for a knowledge transfer?
Stan Shannon wrote:
you have criticized them for using it inappropriately
Actually I start off relatively gently with a phrase like "It may raise a question, but it doesn't beg a question." Most folks check it out; understand what I was talking about; and move on to more important things. You on the other hand attempt to defend your incorrect useage, first by blaming your wife, then by claiming that you can utilise mind-reading and clairvoyance to twist someone else's words until you can make a half-assed case for not being utterly wrong. Too bad. A simple "oops." and everybody forgets what you did. Instead, everyone laughs at you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
At some point in your life you happened to read a definition of 'begging the question'
Absolutely right - Do you prefer holding books up to your temple and hoping for a knowledge transfer?
Stan Shannon wrote:
you have criticized them for using it inappropriately
Actually I start off relatively gently with a phrase like "It may raise a question, but it doesn't beg a question." Most folks check it out; understand what I was talking about; and move on to more important things. You on the other hand attempt to defend your incorrect useage, first by blaming your wife, then by claiming that you can utilise mind-reading and clairvoyance to twist someone else's words until you can make a half-assed case for not being utterly wrong. Too bad. A simple "oops." and everybody forgets what you did. Instead, everyone laughs at you.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Actually I start off relatively gently with a phrase like "It may raise a question, but it doesn't beg a question." Most folks check it out; understand what I was talking about; and move on to more important things. You on the other hand attempt to defend your incorrect useage, first by blaming your wife, then by claiming that you can utilise mind-reading and clairvoyance to twist someone else's words until you can make a half-assed case for not being utterly wrong. Too bad. A simple "oops." and everybody forgets what you did. Instead, everyone laughs at you.
And I recognize when someone who has no real point to make they will commonly use pedantic distractions. There was a logical fallicy inherent in the comments made, which did, in fact, beg the question. Perhaps not with the syntactic precision of the example you gave, but it was certainly there. For god's sake, get past it.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, because obviously Christians deserve no sort of respect.
Simply for claiming to be members of a religious sect? Of course not. Respect is reserved for those doing something to earn it. If they behave themselves, christians deserve only tolerance, something many of them are pretty stingy with.
2 75 22 6
Tim Craig wrote:
Simply for claiming to be members of a religious sect? Of course not. Respect is reserved for those doing something to earn it. If they behave themselves, christians deserve only tolerance, something many of them are pretty stingy with.
But that merely begs the same underlieing question. The comment assumes the existence of a higher, more binding, social order than religion which some how can be promoted by the state.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Patrick S wrote:
Diversity. When a large plurality of viewpoints on something exist, and none are institutionally promoted by a State of any sort, the only inequality that can arise is social, not political. Any good religious idea, if it is to be extended to the political realm, would probably have objectively positive arguments in its favor that don't require resting on the tenets of the religion to support it - like, for example, not killing your neighbor.
Is diversity not institutionally promoted by the state?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Is diversity not institutionally promoted by the state?
Is it? Do they select people and ask them to believe in a certain thing? IMO, state ensures (or is supposed to ensure) that one group or ideology is not opposed by use of force - physical or social. I think that it is just an extension of freedom.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Simply for claiming to be members of a religious sect? Of course not. Respect is reserved for those doing something to earn it. If they behave themselves, christians deserve only tolerance, something many of them are pretty stingy with.
But that merely begs the same underlieing question. The comment assumes the existence of a higher, more binding, social order than religion which some how can be promoted by the state.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Society is now based on law that gives individuals the freedom to pursue happiness or whatever else they want to pursue without infringing on others' right to do the same. State is the mechanism that enforces it. One of the parts is that in the state's eyes, all religions are equal meaning that none will be treated specially. Yet, Christianity is treated specially in the US just because it is the prominent religion. I feel that the opposition for this has not come from other religions, but from the leftists.
-
Thomas Stockwell wrote:
I am writing an argumentative compiled research report on 'Creationism should not be taught in schools' for my High School,
That actually covers a lot of ground - is the question... 1) Should any form of creation myth be taught in school as fact? 2) Should various creation myths be taught in school as a study of world religion/philosophy? 3) Should any form of creation myth be taught in school in a scientific context? My answers are (1) definitely no, (2) definitely yes, and (3) definitely no. As far as pastafarianism goes, it probably merits about 5 seconds in number 2 as a jumping-off point for discussion - not necessarily memorizing the tenets or the history (since what's the point), but maybe why it exists, what purpose does it serve in modern communication, etc. In contrast, an actual study of the relevant Judeo-Christian[sp?] symbols and stories are probably all necessary to make any sort of sense of a whole ton of Western literature. To a reader who's never read Genesis, a serpent metaphor or an apple metaphor has zero meaning.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
That actually covers a lot of ground - is the question... 1) Should any form of creation myth be taught in school as fact? 2) Should various creation myths be taught in school as a study of world religion/philosophy? 3) Should any form of creation myth be taught in school in a scientific context? My answers are (1) definitely no, (2) definitely yes, and (3) definitely no. As far as pastafarianism goes, it probably merits about 5 seconds in number 2 as a jumping-off point for discussion - not necessarily memorizing the tenets or the history (since what's the point), but maybe why it exists, what purpose does it serve in modern communication, etc.
Pastafarianism, unlike other creation myths, is not meant to be believed. It is a satire on the others. Accordingly, it is a contribution to the debate on 1)-3), not something to be discussed as a religion under 2).
John Carson