Miniature Giant Flying Spaghetti Space Hamster Monster

[euphorium420]

brilliant vids mate. cheers.a shame we don't have more "Saerain's" on this big pile of shite we keep calling a planet

[Saerain]

@TheDestroyedBeloved It's commonly used to refer to people who exemplify Poe's law. For example, the fact that many Christians apparently believe that EdwardCurrent is a Christian shows him to be an effective Poe.

[twighlightfan101]

I got scared of the dude in the corner. He's like "peeka boo!" and he's freaking behind your back

[arkayen666123]

for the sake of hopefully not being annoying to you posting i think 3 comments now? i will make this my last for today and say that this one has sold me on a subscription to your channel. i think i may find your method of debate more entertaining than the amazing atheist because you dont spend half of your video spewing hatred. dont get me wrong he is very entertaining but yes this is very good. i highly doubt you would find any of my videos very stimulating intellectually though :/ lol

[louisgeorges2000]

LOL, oh my god (pun intended)! That guy completely discredit is own religion and doesn't even realize he did. I think we'll have to come up with a simpler metaphor for god than that spaghetti monster thing because it went right over their heads. BTW I really was laughing out loud... my stomach still hurts! "Are you sure you're not on our side?" XD

[raiden3k]

"later... in Minas Tirith"  lmao

[bowlsallbroken]

He seems to be saying that the *appearance* of seriousness, traditional popularity, and a sufficiently old and exhaustive back-story are what gives a religion credibility - not whether or not there is what any rational person would consider real evidence to support its claims. No wonder the FSM meme shot right over his head.

If Scientology were 1000 years older he'd be unable to make an argument against its dogma logically consistent with his statements.

[bloodrunsclear]

By the by, I hope I'm not sounding desperate here but I really appreciate your discussing religion with me here! Most people when confronted with the issue either clam up because 'faith prevents them from questioning' or insult me and consider it an argument. Neither is a service to rational discourse but you've shown insight and respect. I salute you.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Thank you, and I sympathize with your frustration with people running away from argument.

In defense of some of them, though, I might say that there are a lot of people in the world, and engaging every single one we encounter in the way that we'd like would probably shut down economies and starve us to death. :p

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Pardon me?

Speaking as a person who believes in the eventual union of all creation, I think discourse is important, but as you point out our current society seems married to the idea that people's beliefs should either by ignored or exclusively confined to private affairs. My mother was an atheist because her church didn't allow questioning, and I was as well until private studies and experiences kindled my faith.

So if the church nearly destroyed our faith, reason returned it XD

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear I think you misunderstood me. I agree with Christopher Hitchens that there is never a good occasion for keeping your mouth shut, nothing ought to be exempt from argument, debate, discussion or ridicule, and any conversation is, to each person, worth having.

My point was that we all encounter more people we'd like to correct or argue with in our day to day lives than we can possibly contend with and must pick our battles for time's sake. No one would farm or eat. 'Twas a joke.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

If I may say Christopher Hitchens, a person who makes a living shutting people's mouths and dismissing arguments, is not a good example for practicing what you preach.

Ah so, sorry. I'm guilty on a day to day basis of taking things too literally and here I fall prey to doing exactly the opposite ^^;

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Hitchens has turned down an argument? The man practically orgasms when he has an opportunity to show someone why they're wrong, not to mention when that person doesn't back off.

Besides, even if it was true that he was a poor example, it's irrelevant to my agreement with what he said. Whether you think he's a hypocrite or not, he said what he said. When warmongering presidents call for peace whilst bombing another country, I agree with their words and condemn the bombing....

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Proving someone 'wrong' doesn't mean having an argument. He throws out little catch phrases, shouts down people and insults them, but he never really entertains an argument he disagrees with. Kind of like the Amazing Atheist or Thinkingatheist, both of whom blocked me for 'asking too many questions'.

So you agree with religiously originated morality?

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear I agree with some religiously promoted morality. I'm not aware of any ‘religiously originated’ morality.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

You're not? Well lets see. Humanism is moral ambiguity so its doesn't conform in the slightest to understood human moral sense. The Code of Humurabi is 'eye for an eye' so its hardly Christian. But read the Sermon of the Mount. That's the morality you suppose instinctively: higher standards of behavior without selfish thought.

This morality originated with Christianity.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear ‘That's the morality you suppose instinctively’

‘This morality originated with Christianity.’

‘That's the morality you suppose instinctively’

‘This morality originated with Christianity.’

‘That's the morality you suppose instinctively’

‘This morality originated with Christianity.’

Feel like I'm dividing by zero, here.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Um...how?

First of all we're talking about two different things: instinctive and formulated morality, both of which coincide because mankind was made to be a moral animal.

Second of all, scientists have no problem supposing contradictory things that seem to reduce to nothing. Quantum Fluctuation is the latest 'we don't need a First Cause' version of this, literally claiming that the universe 'just happened'.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear I'd think you'd be happy with the state of quantum physics. We know it's true, because its predictions work, even though we hardly understand why; and although it doesn't offer evidence of God, it does leave more ‘room’ for beings like that than there was before, because the quantum is just that weird.

As for the universe ‘just happening,’ that depends what you mean by that. As Krauss puts it: under quantum mechanics, when you have nothing, you HAVE to get something.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

The issue stands that atheists are endlessly reciting that Quantum Physics is the great equalizer, the final nail in god's coffin. Reason being? Because probability says so.

So God didn't make the universe. Mathematics did.

The issues stems from the fact that mathematics doesn't do anything. Its a human invented system of measurement which can be useful, but it doesn't determine things by itself.

Hence my concerns for a modern scientific dogmatism exhibited by many atheists.

[Saerain]

Just realized you might have meant ‘oppose instinctively.’ Is that right? Kindness and selflessness are supernatural? In that case:

1. The neocortex and other newer brain structures do a lot of things that suppress the functions of the older, inner brain that we call instincts. You can literally see sympathy on an MRI as easily as anger or mathematical calculation.

2. Altruism was nonexistent before the Sermon on the Mount?

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

1: So the mind is developed to do things that evolution would seem to find useless? If you read Ann Raynd she makes a good case for a purely secular universe rendering morality pointless.

2: No, there was first the innate desire to do good in human hearts, then the ten commandments, and any number of possibly unrecorded unraveling of the call to our souls for moral clarity.

[HallangerA]

Well done. This person debunks his own argument numerous times and is completely oblivious to it. Very entertaining, and the commentary on your part made it more amazing for me.

/subscribed

[Saerain]

@HallangerA Don't pretend you don't know me, cunt.

[HallangerA]

@Saerain I wasn't. And don't call me a cunt or I'll start calling you 'Jesus' again.

[bloodrunsclear]

By the by, I appreciated that the video title and your argument is a reference to Baulder's Gate, my favorite RPG :)

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Between that, your choice of background music, and the trailers on your channel, I know you're a man of taste. ;)

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

^^

Very kind of you! You were fond of Zork Nemesis too? :D

Say...I didn't mean to impugn you specifically if I have done. Actually I'm the least fond of this thought experiment video because it accrued the most ire. Regardless of what you might think of what I believe (or how much of a jackass I can make myself in arguments) please understand I bear no ill will, and if I do that's my failing. If need to remove any baseless accusations I'll do so.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Unfortunately, I never played Nemesis. My experience with Zork was limited to Return to Zork.

Also, whether or not you have, I really don't care whether you make baseless accusations toward me. Even if it does manage to incite me, it's irrelevant, I think. I understand that you're goal isn't to do so, though.

Similarly, I hope you don't feel that I'm

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

I think you'd like it if you're into adventure games! Nemesis is a departure from the regular tongue-in-cheek vision of Zork (although familiar elements abound) but it does tell a fine story and has some brilliantly creepy atmosphere.

I think sir we're on the same side all told! We both want moral clarity, to promote understanding, and seek out the truth. I can hardly condemn someone for that and that wasn't my goal. I just don't consider the FSM a appreciable argumentative tool ^^;

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear I'll agree that it seems hugely overused in comparison to much better analogies and less satirical arguments, but don't you think it was apt for its initial purpose with the Kansas school board? Assuming you're not a Creationist, I mean.

[Saerain]

Or rather, assuming you're not in favor of what the school board was doing.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

I suppose, but the issue is that the FSM has expanded to be the nuclear option for atheists. Watch the video God is a Computer (or something) and watch how petty a learned man can sound by attacking a religious person simply by using the same argument in a different guise.

'Oh yeah? Well MY computer is invisible, all knowing AND it does cool stuff like your stupid God!'

Really? This is what a truth seeker is reduced to?

THAT'S what I attack.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Why, though? Your problem with it appears to be that it doesn't qualify as a religion, not that the being or object proposed isn't an accurate demonstration of the problems with believing in a creative intelligence behind the universe down to the letter of a specific, arbitrarily chosen book. You do this ‘belief per capita over time equals evidence’ thing.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

But consider how Christianity differs. For one thing it DOES have historical records which are consistent with known evidence. For another God doesn't work in supremely silly ways. The description of his actions are all too human. He has a son. He performs miracles that are subtle and each seems to be working with creation rather then despite it (rubbing mud in the eyes of a blind man, like he's remaking his eyes).

The 'belief over time' doesn't even work with the FSM.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Historical records which are accurate about things unrelated to the existence of God, yes? Refer to what I said about my hypothetical Flying Spaghetti Cookbook, or consider that the events of the Chronicles of Narnia occur during the Second World War.

God's actions being human doesn't seem like a point in favor of him not being a human construct, does it? Proposing that the universe must be shaped like a human hand because that's more human comes to mind.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Here's the issue. The historical records are accurate in most things...except the whole God bit? Why?

What reason can you imagine for inventing a deity who goes against Jewish dogma, promises complex things, DIES and then all his followers are hunted and slaughtered?

I have read the FSM accounts and, true to form, they don't have anything to do with history at all. The FSM creators don't understand the Bible in the slightest.

God's actions being human suggest a desired relationship.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear For the very same emotional appeals that lead people to want to believe it. Martyrdom, the promise of eternal bliss for them and eternal agony for their enemies... things like this are appealing to many people. Look at the way we treat soldiers lost to battle and criminals with death sentences. Look at what's successful in the movie industry and the emotional appeals that succeed in circumventing court decisions despite the availability of evidence.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

So let me understand this. People were emotionally appealed to...by a story which seems so morally reprehensible that atheists deny it based on that alone? Martyrdom does NOT promise eternal bliss in Christianity. Saints have died begging for forgiveness for their sins, and even requested to not be saved if not everyone would be. Heaven to a Jew before Christ was boring and foggy. Christ himself doesn't describe Heaven as anything but eternal, so please don't use invalid examples.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear I didn't mean to imply that martyrdom brings you the gold stars in Christianity. Martyrdom, in itself, is an appealing story all its own. Perhaps I should have separated those examples by something other than a comma—I didn't think that it might be misunderstood in that way.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Then do you suppose this same concept could be applied to atheism? How often in the media does the heroic scientist challenge the unreasonable and violent religious zealot to save mankind? How much more self gratifying is it to think that the entirety of existence is measurable, quantifiable, and controllable?

Using this same argument, doesn't atheism fall under the same shade of speculation by association with an appealing story?

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear ‘How often in the media does the heroic scientist challenge the unreasonable and violent religious zealot to save mankind?’

It looks like you mean entertainment media, in which case: not nearly as often as the reverse. Movies like I Am Legend abound where science is, however useful, blind and dangerous, and faith saves the day, one way or another. Even Contact, good though it was, greatly skewed the story in favor of the Palmer character for its American audience.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Avatar, Agora, Day After Tomorrow even Clash of the Titans was about how well meaning atheists tangled with grotesque, horrid, even religious people.

And its strange to me some one in favor of ridiculing the religious out of righteous indignation without giving them the benefit of consideration would take such offense that the rare film calls out science for what it could (and has) become.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear ‘How much more self gratifying is it to think that the entirety of existence is measurable, quantifiable, and controllable?’

I can't figure out whether there's much of a consensus from theists as to whether atheism is dark, bleak, meaningless, and depressing or self-gratifying and an excuse to do whatever one wants.

Whatever the case, my point wasn't that being emotionally appealing makes a thing less likely to be true. You asked why people would want to believe it. I answered.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Atheism seems to have its pronounced stereotypes of the religious they pass to their followers (I just got done with a friend of mine calling me a genocidal maniac because I quoted The Bible).

But my point was emotion doesn't work in the context of the Bible since it seems in my understanding to push aside everything that could work emotionally in its favor which is why modern Christians have to ignore whole sections of it. The Bible doesn't fit as a work of fiction.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Also, the Chronicles of Narnia are accurate except for the whole magical wonderland accessible by children through a wardrobe. That seems kind of important, though.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Ironically Narnia was written by one of the finest Christian apologetics ever: C.S Lewis.

You should read God in the Dock where he specifically tackles the toughest questions of Christianity.

But back to your point, Narnia is not accurate. There were no Pevensies for one thing, no woman riding through London and breaking off a light pole for another.

So again, poor example of your argument unfortunately.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear How so? It's an example of a book with things that can be historically verified and things that cannot, and how the accurate things don't help the others along. I know there are other fictions with more historical accuracy (or, in the same vein, non-fictions with a similar level of inaccuracy as the Bible) which would make for better analogies, but Lewis seemed appropriate.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

The issue is that the book is provably fiction. C.S Lewis lived in relative comfort to invent his stories, had the education to do so, and there are records in abundance proving their fictional nature including his own hand.

No one was threatening to kill him for telling these stories.

Lewis is one of the poorest examples you can give because in each of his non-fiction works he refers to his Narnia tales and admits their fictional nature.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Evidently, it is a very good analogy, because of what it leads you to imply about your reasoning: that if those things did apply to these stories, you'd find them more credible. Why? Why do those things help?

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

If Narnia was written in a time of occupation by a person of little education who wrote about the historical time period with understanding and if that understanding was supported by archeological evidence AND if what he was writing seemed to have no other purpose then describing events he himself could not explain AND went against his own prevailing dogmas AND if he or no one else wrote specifically about his work being fictional I'd raise an eyebrow and investigate.

Would you?

[Saerain]

I should say, more specifically, the problem of belief in anything without evidence, be it a creative intelligence or a teapot. The difference between the two is just in how important the implications would be, isn't it?

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

First of all you're again objectively implying that creative intelligence has no existence. I admire your conviction, but you already said this was unprovable to your satisfaction either way.

Second of all, the tea pot has no previous records associated, by its nature is unprovable, and the more questions you ask the more it falls apart. This however is not the case with Christianity.

Its like saying I can understand latin by speaking in pig latin.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear I'm assuming that by ‘existence,’ you meant ‘evidence.’

I may or may not be dismissing evidence of a creative intelligence. I'd first have to know what you consider to be evidence. Is it that the Bible doesn't ignore the historical events of its time? Is that an association fallacy or are there Biblical events corroborated by history that you propose are, in themselves, evidence of a God?

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Something doesn't need evidence to exist. Ask the scientists who routine attribute breaks in the evolutionary chain to species they haven't or will never discover the remains of.

To me God as you pointed out is difficult if not impossible to empirically prove but logic and historical data can suggest that his existence is not total fabrication.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear ‘Something doesn't need evidence to exist.’

Of course not. But why should we believe that it exists until we have evidence?

‘Ask the scientists who routine attribute breaks in the evolutionary chain to species they haven't or will never discover the remains of.’

This ‘missing link’ thing is such a textbook case of moving the goalpost. Good topic for a video, though. I think I'll do one shortly, although I doubt you'll find any of it new.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

We do have evidence for God.

The issue is that science is so caught up in proving things instead of investigating them that they conform evidence to fit theories and explain away discrepancies, rather then follow evidence to other conclusions. Religion is guilty of this too, but science accusing religion of being the only thing guilty of 'cooking the books' is disingenuous. A study in the UK linking vaccinations and autism passed peer review and proved to be a hoax. There's leaks.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

I'm a creationist in as far as I believe God created existence, but even in the case of Kansas what does the FSM really prove? That a FSM is funny? Certainly, but that's like saying Hitler was a fool because Daffy Duck hit him with a hammer in that one cartoon. If the FSM was fine tuned into an argument, fine, but its like the tea pot example; easily disprovable and proves nothing itself but how hard it truly is to make a religion.

[bloodrunsclear]

'You're a very bright guy only you're being very stupid on this subject'

I'm stupid about religion because I fail to take into account it might be mythology.

Wrong. That's why I accept it primarily on faith, but that faith is informed by history which you lightly brush aside...using yourself as the rebuttal which again is lovely if you have some way to prove it. I've yet to see it.

And in the end it comes to I'm not thinking...because I'm not an atheist.

Almost dogmatic in its conviction.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear ‘That's why I accept it primarily on faith [...]’

Indeed.

‘[...] but that faith is informed by history which you lightly brush aside...’

Once again, informed by history in what way? That people have shared that faith for a long time? Do you really not understand how that's not evidence? Do you just accept on faith anything that's old, or do you require more than anecdote?

In what way am I ‘using myself as the rebuttal’? What on Earth does that mean in this context?

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Informed by history in the same way that you ignored/rebuked.

Do I really not accept history as evidence. Neither do you. You claim to still believe in the Roman Empire because of archeological evidence.

'Do you just accept...' Fine straw men, but I provided evidence.

And I refer to your continuing to use no other source but yourself to prove and disprove things.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear You're implying there's archeological evidence of God or that there's archeological evidence of belief in God?

If there were merely archeological evidence of belief in the Roman Empire, I'd treat that the same way. There's a serious difference between evidence of existence and evidence of belief.

As you've said, there probably can't be evidence of God's existence, so why do we care? I'd contend that there probably can be evidence of God's existence that hasn't been proposed.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

You have no difficulty in believing that archeological evidence of the Roman Empire is not comparable to belief in the Roman empire but confirms its validity. There's evidence of the existence of Christ and the truth of the Bible.

And I'm sorry but if you refuse to even consider what you can't prove then sub atomic particle physics isn't for you either. You didn't really propose that God had any evidence at all (unjust if I might say) but what might this evidence be?

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Evidence of mere belief in the Roman Empire would be things like writings claiming that it existed, as with God. That is why it's not comparable to archeological evidence.

In regards to evidence of Jesus, I hope you don't mean the Shroud of Turin. Besides, even presuming that a person consistent with some of the Bible existed, that's quite apart from evidence of his supernatural properties or of God. Would the tomb of Vlad Țepeș be evidence of the truth of vampiric myth?

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

There is archeological evidence to support the stories of the Bible and from there its common sense.

So Jews at some point in history decided to compile their oral tradition with a new invented revelation...which goes against their own dogma? This is like science compiling a brochure of evolution...then going on to disprove in the next chapters. You can assume this is a VERY clever ploy but it seems highly unlikely, especially since practically every Christian mentioned is executed!

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Also, subatomic particles are untestable?

Certainly, there are hypothetical particles, which tend to be hypothesized to be subatomic (because anything larger would be much easier to observe the effects of), and we'll keep looking for those because they are testable. Those subatomic particles which are not hypothetical are so because they have been tested. If you think electrons, for example, are hypothetical, that would be a fun discussion....

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Yes, subatomic particles are specially unobservable in some cases since observation changes their behavior so they ARE hypothetical.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear As for what evidence of God might be: as I said, I can't currently conceive of any way to show it empirically with our current understanding of the universe, but that doesn't lead me to rule out the possibility. We couldn't have conceived of having proof of who a child's father was in otherwise uncertain cases until genetics.

I just don't think that being, as we currently understand it, unfalsifiable, lifts the burden of proof on anything.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

So if you cannot conceive of empirical evidence to prove God...you demand it anyway?

Also atheists are constantly stating that there's in an absence of belief, not a statement of belief, so in essence they are declaring their position unfalsifiable...to lift the burden of proof.

Um...convenient?

[bloodrunsclear]

'If only we had a way of investigating claims. Insuring new evidence isn't twisted by those who don't like it'

So that would be science to you (your religion)

First of all, science is consistently about twisting new evidence and conforming to popular theories. Second of all its inherently secular so this is a poor example of religious neutrality.

Then again you're using yourself to prove absolute truth.

Maybe some people can accept that. I'd prefer true proof, not just your beliefs.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear So what's your alternative? If ‘science’ is failing to adapt to new evidence (even though that's exactly what the process of science is about, but setting that aside) then what do you use to prove it that isn't science?

Using myself to prove... what the hell is that sentence? You will have to rephrase; it is nonsensical.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Of course science is designed to adapt to new evidence. I like science my friend!

The only problem is its largely become a similar dogma to the very thing atheists have co-opted it to destroy.

And I like your argument 'If we can't disprove science...what's the point?'

Um...that's not an argument. That's saying you can't possibly comprehend a world without your conception of science.

Which sounds religious.

Using yourself to prove. Find me an instance in which you site anything else.

[bloodrunsclear]

Cont...

'Mythology disproving mythology'

Well, I'm glad you're so certain. Again 'Saying something doesn't make it so'

'All it needs is a book documenting current evnets?'

Hmm...I guess you hold doubts about Alexander the Great then. And the Roman empire. Then again the difference between history and religion is...you don't believe in religion. I can't count the amount of times you use your disbelief to prove something.

Ironic.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Yeah, absolutely, there's no archeological evidence for Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire. You're right. Nothing but historical account. So true.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Don't you mean that there's archeological evidence for the belief in Alexander the Great and the Roman Empire?

Also, satire and sarcasm is childish and mindless I hear...

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Strange, because it is something you engaged in heavily within your video. Suggesting that atheists ‘actually believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster’ and things like that. I assumed that was intentional, anyway. Was I mistaken?

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

That's my issue here.

You accuse me of using satire which I admittedly do decry and use anyway (apologies) but look at the way you phrase it.

'Yes...we all know satire is childish'

So you decry satire as being childish...by using satire.

You perpetrated the very thing you accused me (rightfully admittedly) of doing.

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear And I'm not sure what you mean about ‘mythology disproving mythology.’ What does that mean?

If you're referring to me pointing out that you're using mythology as evidence that mythology isn't mythology, then you might want to address that.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

You claimed that religion (which you endlessly refer as mythology) all it was doing was comparing, contrasting and disputing mythology.

If you can't remember what you said I'd suggest you go back and watch your own video.

And I did address this in this comment.

Again, you refer to 'mythology' objectively using yourself as the proof of your claims.

Which didn't cut it for me. Why for you?

[bloodrunsclear]

'Naturally satire is for the unthinking and the childish'

So let me see here: was this confirmation again of what I had just stated or an attack against me which you didn't even personally believe?

Or just you attempting to be clever and proving that double standards are the norm for you, accepted completely without thinking as long as it makes a 'point'?

I'll go further if you'd like. Just something to chew on.

[0morgen0]

I am so, so glad you did this. Fantastic entertainment and you seem to have put my thoughts into words. Again, another brilliant video.

[Fimiell]

I enjoy how he says that the FSM is not a very good 'attack against' religion. I love how everything is always an 'attack against' religion. If the thing were a piece of political humour, he'd no doubt find it quite mild, but no, doing anything but pretending religion is okay means OMG UNDER ATTACK RED ALERT FIRE TORPEDOES.

[Saerain]

By the way, I found this guy through his wealth of comments on a video by CultOfDusty about exactly why I'm wasting my time on him: watch?v=IlXkjrluq_4

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Hmm...again. You are arguing against conditioning by a person who you accuse of mocking a thinking process...

And to do so you reference a conditioning video all about mocking.

Double standards are the best kind ^^

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear I don't follow.

I don't think you mocked a thinking process, and if I did think that, I wouldn't have accused you of it, because I don't care.

I also don't see where I've talked about ‘conditioning’ at all. Of course we're all ‘conditioned.’ You might be confusing me with someone else. Which would be understandable, with YouTube's comments system....

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

This was petty wording on my part and I apologize (I do that a lot ^^;)

I was mocking not atheism specifically but the FSM which is a thinking process, namely that by mocking something you can prove something. I tried to distance that from any attacks against atheists. The FSM is childish, not the seekers for truth.

Someone else mentioned conditioning and it irritated me because, like the FSM, its a way to avoid actually tackling the issue, attacking the person instead :/

[Paramud]

Didn't know that Jesus was born in Middle Earth. Thanks, Saerain!

[MikeThaMunsta]

... and if you knew anything about your own religion you would know jesus once took the form of a burning bush... yet the FSM cant take this form? come on he already has eyes... what more similarities do you want??

[MikeThaMunsta]

i cant say it was hard but.. nice job on this on Saerain... I would like to point out too... around 32:50 when talking about what the god looks like and its connection to man....

who cares what form they are in? are you even aware what you have been conditioned too? you make it sound like if they are in any other form its something you shouldnt be able to relate to.. its no different than claiming african american women should find it difficult to worship to jesus christ...

[Saerain]

@MikeThaMunsta I know his video seems like an easy target, and I'm fully expecting some theists to come forth to point that out, but honestly, it's the least perspicacious folks like him that I'm most interested in engaging with if I'm going to do this. Not because they're easier to ridicule (though they are), and not because they're harder to reach (though they may be), but because I think they're the most fascinating, really.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Least perspicacious?

Huh...could that be because you disagree with me seeing as the sum total of your rebuttal depends upon your understanding more then I do and using yourself as the benchmark for truth?

Then again, its your channel. I doubt anyone listening here isn't already convinced of your validity by association.

Must be nice, but without rebuttals is there real knowledge?

Or just ego stroking?

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear Is that second sentence ironically accusing me of arrogance, or are you really calling foul on me understanding something better than you?

Whatever that is, tell me exactly, and maybe I can help you understand it better.

[bloodrunsclear]

@MikeThaMunsta

'Conditioned'

Hmm...again interesting term. Apparently Saerain and yourself are in no way pre-conditioned.

After all, religiosity and its precepts and denials is mental illness.

Atheism (a train of thought unable even to define itself as a train of thought at all for fear of being held to a standard of truth) is the ONLY true rationality...

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear That's like saying ‘theism is the only true irrationality.’ Very nonsensical.

Rationality is its own thing and no one is going to say that it's synonymous with atheism or any other conclusion. Rationality isn't a conclusion. It suggests conclusions, and the suggestion changes with evidence.

Also, do you have any arguments at all? It's fine by me if you just want a pissing contest, but given that you often claim to value argument, I thought you might want to try it.

[bloodrunsclear]

@Saerain

Well, at least you're firm in your conviction that theism and irrationality are so interlinked that you won't even consider it for a second. Not very scientific, but certainly closer to modern 'science'.

Apparently rationality is a conclusion because, like you have, its possible to dismiss every form of evidence you disagree with.

Do you have an argument? I've made one and sited it.

Now you're upset that I'm defending it?

[Saerain]

@bloodrunsclear It was just the polar opposite of what you said in order to show how meaningless the sentence was. Pretend that it says ‘theism is the only true rationality’ if you want, it still makes the same point.

Feel free to point out what evidence I've dismissed. Maybe you think it's being dismissed ignored because others don't recognize it as evidence, and if that's the case, I apologize. Perhaps if you label it ‘EVIDENCE!’ I will know exactly what it is you're referring to.

[MikeThaMunsta]

@bloodrunsclear No one is "pre-conditioned" as everyone is born pure...

conditioning is a social thing. it comes from our interactions.

we are all conditioned in many ways: work hard cuz you need to be rich, buy more stuff cuz it will make you happy, listen to government so our best interest is taken care of, obey the law cuz that will protect us, worship someone you have never met for things you cant prove cuz someone told you to...

fuck definitions think about whats really rational here

[bloodrunsclear]

@MikeThaMunsta

Born 'pure'?

So we ARE conditioned speaking of rationality. For one thing, pure is a state like any other thus conditioned by the process of birth. Second of all you wouldn't consider anything 'pure' without conditioning to do so, would you?

You can always deny what you don't believe because someone told you or because you chose to.

[MikeThaMunsta]

@bloodrunsclear I just meant pure as in of no exterior influence or motive...

again with the technical definitions your killin me here.. the point is we can be conditioned about a variety of things in a variety of ways and it can be very easy for us to agree with them.. and the longer we agree with them the more we start saying we believe.. as if we came up with the idea or conclusion all on our own and we forget that it was just something we were once told and the idea manifested into a belief

[bloodrunsclear]

@MikeThaMunsta

Um...even then no. Your genetics, chemical composition, manner of birth all determine your later personality.

I agree with the last bit. Do you feel your own suppositions are your own even about this then, or did you forget that someone told you to believe that we forget that our conclusions are just something someone told us to believe?

This isn't meant to be round about; I'm a big fan of Socrates.