The Flying Spaghetti Monster, solipsism and absurdism

[PureX]

Not at all like the grown-up slandering of atheists.

Grown ups don't need to resort to childish slander.

 

[PureX]

Adversarial? You are the one denying the faith of people you have no comprehension of.

We both know that no one actually believes in the idea of a "flying spaghetti monster". And so does everyone else reading this. The only people who are going to claim otherwise are lying.

 

[ChristineM]

We both know that no one actually believes in the idea of a "flying spaghetti monster". And so does everyone else reading this. The only people who are going to claim otherwise are lying.

Unless you are

I seen your holier than thou elitism at work before and take absolutely no notice of it.

To me the fact thst you decry something (in this care shouting liar) only gives that something more credibility.

And please dont pretend you know my mind. It just shows how desperate you are

 

[ChristineM]

Grown ups don't need to resort to childish slander.

Oh the hypocrisy. It burns, it burns

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Descartes: “I think, therefore I am".
mikkel_the_dane: I think, therefore it is.

Ahh. Ain't philosophy grand.

Well, it is as exists and it is real to me are not the same. Now the fun part is the real have no objective referent. But I don't know if you know what an objective referent is? So it might not be relevant to you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It seems to me that you are doing some conflating of:

- semantics
- solipsism
- FSM

I really wish you hadn't dragged the FSM into this, it seems that you're mostly arguing for solipsism, no?

Well, it depends. What kind of solipsism do you think, I am referring to and how does it relate to knowledge and existence? There is not just one kind of solipsism.
I am in fact arguing for a limited version of cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativism. I do believe in objective reality. And metaphysical/ontological solipsism even has its limits in regards to existence.

 

[crossfire]

Disclaimer:
If you really don't like the meaningless, absurd and so on, don't read on. If you then choose to make a complaint in a post that it is absurd, then that is your problem and not mine.

If I have to choose a organized, real religion, I would choose The Flying Spaghetti Monster and treat it as real and then make up my own subjective interpretation to fit me.
We all do that as for how we deal with reality in practice. Including all the different sects of the believers in truth. Religious as well as non-religious. So for the absurd as both solipsism in all its variants and absurdism I can do the same. I subjectively choose how to make sense of reality and the apparent truth is that it is real absurd to some of the other members here. I get that, but here is the explanation with cultural science:
All unreal beliefs have real consequences.

I have just tested that and as along as my unreal beliefs apparently work(real consequences, whether that really is), I have figured out, that apparently I am still a part of reality.
How do I know that? Well, the members of the forum, who know, what reality really is, keep telling me in effect, that I don't understand the real reality, because my beliefs are in effect with truth really absurd.
But for them to answer me, requires that I am either a part of the real reality or that I really exist as really not existing in reality. I have been told so for over 20 years now, that I really don't understand reality and to me, that qualifies for some sort of evidence that I am a part of the real reality, otherwise how can they answer?
Yeah, I know. It is absurd that unreal beliefs can have real consequences, but the joke is that you are apparently looking at it now. So is that real?

So for you how ever you in effect believe, that you know the truth, I don't and that works fine for me. And I hope it works for you to believe in the truth.
So if you have to use the truth in answering me, I will just do it differently. You don't have to agree with me and I hope your life works for you, but you might want to learn to accept that even the truth has a limit. That also goes for proof, evidence, reason, logic, objectivity and all the rest. In effect the falsification of that everything is real according to the model of the really real, is that, I do the unreal and I can do that, because I have learned to do it. The unreal has to be real, otherwise you wouldn't know it.
So here it is with cultural science: The word "real" doesn't really have an objective referent, just like God or truth and what not. Even reality doesn't have an objective referent.

Regards
Mikkel

You might enjoy Section two of Chang Tzu: The Discourse on Making All Things Equal.
https://terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html#2

 

[icehorse]

Well, it depends. What kind of solipsism do you think, I am referring to and how does it relate to knowledge and existence? There is not just one kind of solipsism.
I am in fact arguing for a limited version of cognitive, cultural, moral and subjective relativism. I do believe in objective reality. And metaphysical/ontological solipsism even has its limits in regards to existence.

I can accept forms of solipsism as being possible. What I've never figured out is how accepting any form of that philosophy would help me?

 

[ecco]

Not at all like the grown-up slandering of atheists.

Grown ups don't need to resort to childish slander.

So,
are you saying that people who denigrate atheists are not grown-ups
-or-
or are you saying that their denigration of atheists is so refined that it cannot be considered childish
?

 

[ecco]

We both know that no one actually believes in the idea of a "flying spaghetti monster". And so does everyone else reading this. The only people who are going to claim otherwise are lying.

When I post "There are no gods" some theists always say: You are not omniscient, you can't know everything. Yet, here you, a theist, is asserting that:

No one actually believes in the idea of a "flying spaghetti monster"
-and-
The only people who are going to claim otherwise are lying.




ETA: May I quote you in the future?

 

[ecco]

Well, it is as exists and it is real to me are not the same. Now the fun part is the real have no objective referent. But I don't know if you know what an objective referent is? So it might not be relevant to you?

What I do know is that you asserted:

If I did believe in it, it would be real.​

I wonder if you could believe in 100 tiny faries dancing on the head of a pin.

A photo would be great.

 

[PureX]

So,
are you saying that people who denigrate atheists are not grown-ups?

No, I'm saying that people who who feel the need to slander theists, or atheists, are childish and petty. There's nothing wrong with denigrating theists or atheists that exhibit dishonesty and hypocrisy. But insulting parodies aren't the way to do that.

 

[PureX]

When I post "There are no gods" some theists always say: You are not omniscient, you can't know everything. Yet, here you, a theist, is asserting that:

No one actually believes in the idea of a "flying spaghetti monster"
-and-
The only people who are going to claim otherwise are lying.

That's because it's true, and you and I both know it's true. Whether or not you're able to be honest about it is up to you.

 

[ecco]

No, I'm saying that people who who feel the need to slander theists, or atheists, are childish and petty. There's nothing wrong with denigrating theists or atheists that exhibit dishonesty and hypocrisy. But insulting parodies aren't the way to do that.

OK. Now I get it.

It's OK to denigrate atheists and theists that you feel are exhibiting dishonesty and hypocrisy. However, one should not use insulting parodies to do the denigrating.

 

[PureX]

OK. Now I get it.

It's OK to denigrate atheists and theists that you feel are exhibiting dishonesty and hypocrisy. However, one should not use insulting parodies to do the denigrating.

Well, unless you're trying to be like this guy?

 

[ecco]

That's because it's true, and you and I both know it's true. Whether or not you're able to be honest about it is up to you.

As I said, you believe you know the mindset of every living human being.

I don't know it's true. As your theist friends have said to me, I cannot know everything. Obviously, you believe you do (about one subject anyway).

People believe in man-made gods. All kinds of man-made gods. Yet, for some reason, you select just one of them and say: "It can't be so".

The only reason you believe that, is because that particular god started out as a parody. Well, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to believe that Eros started out as a parody:

circa 2800 Years Ago

Aeneas: I saw her and I just fell in love.
Alcides: Hey Guys, Aeneas is in love.
Aeneas: It felt like my heart was shot with an arrow of love.
Alcides: Who shot the arrow? Some little naked imp?
All: Ha Ha
Alcides: Let's call him Eros- Since he works so fast we can say he is the son of Mercury.
Agapios: And his mom is the love goddess Venus.
All: More wine!!!


PureX, no one ever believed Eros was a real god, did they?

Or do you think people today are far too sophisticated to believe such nonsensical things?

 

[sojourner]

The problem is, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a real religion. For something to be a genuine religion, it must have believers. People who sign up for FSM don't actually believe in any FSM. Rather, they are atheists who use the FSM to mock religion.

I’m shocked! You’ve burst my bubble! I’m gunna get the screwdriver and pry the badge off the boot of the car now.

 

[sojourner]

It is as real as any other religion, just because most government dont recognise it as a religion for tax breaks. It is recognised as a religion in at least 3 countries that i am aware of

Maybe we should declare Donald Trump a religion. Like FSM, he’s absurd in appearance, more unlikely as a beneficent leader, promulgated his cult through the propagation of myth, declares that he alone can save us, has a buncha mindless adherents, and by all accounts, tries to touch many of my sisters with a mythic, Noodly Appendage.

Plus, like FSM, he won’t wear a mask in public.

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe we should declare Donald Trump a religion. Like FSM, he’s absurd in appearance, more unlikely as a beneficent leader, promulgated his cult through the propagation of myth, declares that he alone can save us, has a buncha mindless adherents, and by all accounts, tries to touch many of my sisters with a mythic, Noodly Appendage.

Plus, like FSM, he won’t wear a mask in public.

Your evidence that the FSM won't wear a mask?

And i dont see any countries granting trump religious status

 

[sojourner]

Your evidence that the FSM won't wear a mask?

And i dont see any countries granting trump religious status

1) I’ve never seen a likeness of FSM (sauce be upon him) with a mask.
2) Have you spent much time in the rural Midwest? Or seen the Senate chamber bowing down to him? Looks like a declaration of religion to me.