Sheilds of Absurdity

Teapots, dragons, and faeries just to name a few. Why must atheists and a most public agnostics use terms such as these. When you could just say spaceship instead of teapot. Why must one shield themselves with absurdity.

To illustrate the absurdity of the claims that are being lampooned.

Are you saying you find teapots, dragons and fairies absurd but great and powerful invisible sky-daddies rational?

I'm beginning to wonder about you.

Originally Posted by Blondin

To illustrate the absurdity of the claims that are being lampooned.
Are you saying you find teapots, dragons and fairies absurd but great and powerful invisible sky-daddies rational?
I'm beginning to wonder about you.

No in my other posts I think I made it clear I find it all irrational. People that use said statements just pray on commonality and none of these words would make any theory more correct.

When you use words like teapot, dragon and faerie you are just play upon the layman's perceptions and I believe someone of any intelligence would see you stupider for it.

...pray on commonality... I suppose you mean 'prey', not that that makes any more sense.

Well, I guess Bertrand Russell and Carl Sagan should consider themselves soundly chastised (if they were still alive).

Tell me, do you live in your mother's basement? Do you have a job?

Well pray was a play on words.

I wish. Yes.

Originally Posted by Judokas

The absurdity of the claims shows that the same arguments used to defend "god" can be used to defend anything we make up.

Only in the case of the FSM (so far). The FSM is in most cases a Shield of Absurdity and I only say most cases because out there I'm sure someone really believes in the FSM. I don't mean to offend (if I do) but I would bet money that the Pastafarian I see on your and Blondin's personal summary is a Shield of Absurdity.

Come to think of it the "church" of the FSM is really just a manifestation of a Shield of Absurdity.

Originally Posted by Judokas

In fact the church of the FSM correlates better and has more evidence to back it up then the bible.......

While I know not how well the "church" of the FSM correlates. I do know that charts for the sake of charts is not evidence and if there was any prof for the FSM I'm sure I would of herd it... but just in case tell me some of this evidence.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

Only in the case of the FSM (so far). The FSM is in most cases a Shield of Absurdity and I only say most cases because out there I'm sure someone really believes in the FSM. I don't mean to offend (if I do) but I would bet money that the Pastafarian I see on your and Blondin's personal summary is a Shield of Absurdity.

Come to think of it the "church" of the FSM is really just a manifestation of a Shield of Absurdity.

I am not sure what a shield of absurdity is - what you call a shield is what I call an overt example of why the religious logic fails. The purpose is to show I can defend the "church of the FSM" with the same arguments used to defend Christianity,Islam .... I do not believe in the FSM but it doesn't change the fact that I can defend it, Islam and Christianity using the same arguments.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

While I know not how well the "church" of the FSM correlates. I do know that charts for the sake of charts is not evidence and if there was any prof for the FSM I'm sure I would of herd it... but just in case tell me some of this evidence.

It takes facts we know today and misinterprets them to gain the result it wants ie- the earths average temperature is heating up and correlates it with pirate populations

It also does things like explain that the FSM is lazy and inconsistent which allows better reasoning for why "natural disasters" (caused by his noodly appendage) seem so inconsistent .... no need to invoke the mysterious ways of the FSM .... he is just lazy and inconsistent.

Again these are all absurd arguments but they correlate better to our pattern seeking brains then just claiming the almighty is mysterious when cornered in an discussion. Perhaps correlate is not the best word ... perhaps "make sense" instead?

Originally Posted by Judokas

I am not sure what a shield of absurdity is - what you call a shield is what I call an overt example of why the religious logic fails................

O it is overt. Its a shield in the sense that most atheists I see especially Richard Dawkins (the closeted agnostic) use absurdness to shield what seams to be there own week arguments.

This is all about my wish that people that claim a scientific and in some cases a moral high ground would just act like.