Why is the FSM absurd

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster absurd and ridiculous or just absurd. To which one could ask the same of Leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns etc.

Are we to take absurd as meaning impossible .......or absurd as meaning ridiculous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster absurd and ridiculous or just absurd. To which one could ask the same of Leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns etc.

Both - the terms are synonymous.

Are we to take absurd as meaning impossible .......or absurd as meaning ridiculous.

Depends on which meaning of "impossible" you're attempting - colloquial or strict epistemic.

You should know this by now given the many times it's been explained to you. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Both - the terms are synonymous.

So basically any argument that involves absurbidity involves ridicule.

Ha ha.

[Stranger]

So basically any argument that involves absurbidity involves ridicule.

Are you still struggling to get your head round reductio ad absurdum? The answer to your question is no, it involves a concept that is ridiculous ("Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."). It does not involve the ridicule of anything, let alone some other concept or person. It's just of the form "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. In your case it's mostly "if I accept your argument for god, then I can use the same to deduce the existence leprechauns, the FSM, or whatever".

Jeez, why don't you stop playing silly word games and just read and try to understand one of the many descriptions of reductio ad absurdum? It's even used in mathematical proofs, where the absurdity is generally a contradiction.

This really isn't rocket science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So basically any argument that involves absurbidity involves ridicule.

Ha ha.

Not at all. You're confusing the adjective with the verb. Adjectives are descriptive words, so "ridiculous" (which is what you asked about) simply describes the status of the object to which it's attached.

Verbs on the other hand are "doing" words - they indicate an action or an activity. An example would be "to ridicule" (which you didn't ask about).

Thus the adjectives "absurd" and "ridiculous" are synonymous, but need not entail the act of ridiculing (verb) something.

Ha ha indeed.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you still struggling to get your head round reductio ad absurdum? The answer to your question is no, it involves a concept that is ridiculous ("Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."). It does not involve the ridicule of anything, let alone some other concept or person. It's just of the form "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. In your case it's mostly "if I accept your argument for god, then I can use the same to deduce the existence leprechauns, the FSM, or whatever".

Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing. How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this. This is horses laugh. In what way are though they absurd. Hillside replies they are magical. Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error. Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen. Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic. So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun. Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.

Secondly of course Hillside ridicules God. He comes from the same batch as Dawkins.

Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory.  Why is Y absurd?

Let's exercise your statement.

If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)

So how am I not saying God is ridiculous. and if I am saying he is I am somehow not ridiculing God or whoever?

If I accept Winston Churchill, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd.(ridiculous)

How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not at all. You're confusing the adjective with the verb. Adjectives are descriptive words, so "ridiculous" (which is what you asked about) simply describes the status of the object to which it's attached.

Verbs on the other hand are "doing" words - they indicate an action or an activity. An example would be "to ridicule" (which you didn't ask about).

Thus the adjectives "absurd" and "ridiculous" are synonymous, but need not entail the act of ridiculing (verb) something.

Ha ha indeed.       

Hillside, if you are saying and you have that anything is possible then you contradict yourself everytime you claim you are making an argumentum ad absurdum.

So Leprechauns and God are anything therefore they are possible so they cannot be  part of an argumentum ad absurdum.

So When you make an argument involving Leprechauns you cannot be making an argumentum ad absurdum.

So you must be making a Horses Laugh argument.

Because saying anything is possible and Gods and Leprechauns are impossible is contradictory.....It is absurd.

You may now collect your arse in a sling, as they say.

[Stranger]

Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing.

Of course it's 'bad' (invalid or unsound) if it leads to a contradiction or absurdity.

How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this.

Do you know anybody who takes them seriously?

This is horses laugh. In what way are though they absurd. Hillside replies they are magical. Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error. Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen. Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic. So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun. Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.

What a stream of unmitigated, ignorant drivel. Why don't you use google and read up on all these fallacies and terms you clearly haven't got a clue about? There is no horse laugh fallacy, calling leprechauns magical is not equating them with magic, so there is no category error. The rest is even more absurd and riddled with silly misunderstandings.

Why not try to pay some actual attention to what is being said for, just for a change?

Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory.  Why is Y absurd?

It depends what Y is, of course.

If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)

For about the ten thousandth time: that is not the argument. The argument is about some arguments or justifications for belief in god, which could just as easily be used to justify belief in leprechauns.

How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?

You can't - that has never (in all I've read here) been suggested.

TRY PAYING SOME ATTENTION!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course it's 'bad' (invalid or unsound) if it leads to a contradiction or absurdity.

Do you know anybody who takes them seriously?

What a stream of unmitigated, ignorant drivel. Why don't you use google and read up on all these fallacies and terms you clearly haven't got a clue about? There is no horse laugh fallacy, calling leprechauns magical is not equating them with magic, so there is no category error. The rest is even more absurd and riddled with silly misunderstandings.

Why not try to pay some actual attention to what is being said for, just for a change?

It depends what Y is, of course.

For about the ten thousandth time: that is not the argument. The argument is about some arguments or justifications for belief in god, which could just as easily be used to justify belief in leprechauns.

You can't - that has never (in all I've read here) been suggested.

That contradicts your previous claim about what I am doing.

For the umpteenth time what is absurd(contradictory or impossible) about Leprechauns?

[Outrider]

Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing. How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this. This is horses laugh. In what way are though they absurd. Hillside replies they are magical. Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error. Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen. Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic. So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun. Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.

Secondly of course Hillside ridicules God. He comes from the same batch as Dawkins.

Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory.  Why is Y absurd?

Let's exercise your statement.

If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)

So how am I not saying God is ridiculous. and if I am saying he is I am somehow not ridiculing God or whoever?

If I accept Winston Churchill, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd.(ridiculous)

How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?

The absurdity of Leprechauns is to sprinkle humour on to the argument, it isn't the argument itself.  You could replace 'Leprechauns' with any number of not inherently absurd but also not generally accepted phenomena to show that the argument is that the particular justification for God being deployed is flawed because it can equally justify any number of concepts which (presumably) the original proponent does not accept are real.

The 'absurdum' in the 'reductio ad absurdum' is the argument; the absurd in Leprechauns is just because it's an amusing contrast to the stereotypically stern, sagacious depiction of the Abrahamic god.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The absurdity of Leprechauns is to sprinkle humour on to the argument, it isn't the argument itself.  You could replace 'Leprechauns' with any number of not inherently absurd but also not generally accepted phenomena to show that the argument is that the particular justification for God being deployed is flawed because it can equally justify any number of concepts which (presumably) the original proponent does not accept are real.

The 'absurdum' in the 'reductio ad absurdum' is the argument; the absurd in Leprechauns is just because it's an amusing contrast to the stereotypically stern, sagacious depiction of the Abrahamic god.

O.

OK then so how are Leprechauns absurd I.e impossible or contradictory.

And what arguments are made for God that are being made for Leprechauns bearing in mind the humour is based on them being hyper diminutive Irishmen with tiny clothes and pots of gold at the end of rainbows?

[Stranger]

That contradicts your previous claim about what I am doing.

What previous claim?

For the umpteenth time what is absurd(contradictory or impossible) about Leprechauns?

Are you really as daft as your posts sometimes suggest? It's just a fable that pretty much nobody takes seriously - it could be anything similar, and that's the whole point - your 'reasons' or 'arguments' for god are often applicable to pretty much any myth you care to mention.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What previous claim?

Are you really as daft as your posts sometimes suggest? It's just a fable that pretty much nobody takes seriously - it could be anything similar, and that's the whole point - your 'reasons' or 'arguments' for god are often applicable to pretty much any myth you care to mention.

I’m not taking lessons from someone who proposes that, and I quote.

ridiculous ("Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd."). It does not involve the ridicule of anything, let alone some other concept or person. It's just of the form "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory. In your case it's mostly "if I accept your argument for god, then I can use the same to deduce the existence leprechauns, the FSM, or whatever".

Are you denying this is yours?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What a tangled web of ignorance, incomprehension and straw manning you weave. In the sure knowledge that you’ll do exactly the same to the rebuttals to it, for what it’s worth…

Yes but Hillside takes this forward by suggesting that this is a bad thing. How does he possibly deduce this. He assumes that Leprechauns are absurd and proceeds as if we know this.

Leprechauns are ridiculous because there's no good reason to think they exist.

This is horses laugh.

No it isn’t.

In what way are though they absurd.

See above.

Hillside replies they are magical.

No he doesn’t. What he actually says is that if you want to claim anything able at will to flit between supposed non-material and material states then absent any known process to do that the claim is epistemically equivalent to “it’s magic”.

Here he is equating Leprechauns with magic which is a category error.

No he isn’t and no it isn’t. See above.

Then he tells us he cannot accept Leprechauns as hyper diminutive irishmen.

No he doesn’t. He exactly accepts that when they choose to be in material form (just as you think “god” was a burning bush, an angel etc when in material form).

Effectively denying that there is anything about a Leprechaun other than magic.

Wrong again. “Magic” may as well be the description for the process of moving in and out of the material, for leprechauns and for god alike.

So why doesn't he use the word magic rather than Leprechaun.

He doesn’t. The “horse laugh” fallacy means something else.

Answer, he knows he won't get the same horses laugh.

Nope - see above.

Secondly of course Hillside ridicules God. He comes from the same batch as Dawkins.

Be nice if you could stop lying here, even just for five minutes. What Hillside actually does is to rebut the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “god”.

Why not write that down over and over again until if finally sinks in?

Thirdly, what the fuck is this: "if I accept X, then I can deduce Y", where Y is absurd or contradictory.  Why is Y absurd?

It’s called logic. You should try it.

Let's exercise your statement.

If I accept God, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd(ridiculous)

Wrong again. It’s “if I accept the arguments is use to justify my belief God, then when identical arguments also produce the outcome “leprechauns” I must accept them too”.

Again, write it down so I don’t have to keep correcting you on it. 

So how am I not saying God is ridiculous. and if I am saying he is I am somehow not ridiculing God or whoever?

Gibberish.

If I accept Winston Churchill, I can deduce Leprechauns where Leprechauns are absurd.(ridiculous)

You’ve lost it completely now.

How am I deducing Leprechauns from God anyway?

You’re not. No-one is. 

[Stranger]

I’m not taking lessons from someone who proposes that, and I quote.
...
Are you denying this is yours?

You're not making the slightest bit of sense here. What do you think I've contradicted? What has what you quoted got to do with you not taking lessons from me when it's simply a description of the redreductio ad absurdum process and how it's often applied to your stated reasons for belief in god? Something that's been explained to you multiple times by several people.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, if you are saying and you have that anything is possible then you contradict yourself everytime you claim you are making an argumentum ad absurdum.

You haven’t understood a word of the arguments that undo you have you. Not. A. Word.

Once again: our understanding of reality is limited by our ability to understand reality. Within the understanding we do have though, we assign to truth claims the epistemic values “subjective” and “objective”. The former are opinions that cannot be justified with reason or evidence; the latter are facts justifiable with reason or evidence. At that level of abstraction beliefs such as “leprechauns”, “god” etc are in the former category – so when people assert them to be in the latter we can call the claim absurd or ridiculous.

That’s not to say though that there cannot be realities beyond our ability to understand them, and that those realities could be inhabited by anything.   

I suggest you write this down.   

So Leprechauns and God are anything therefore they are possible so they cannot be  part of an argumentum ad absurdum.

Oh dear. See above…

So When you make an argument involving Leprechauns you cannot be making an argumentum ad absurdum.

Stop digging.

So you must be making a Horses Laugh argument.

No, I’m using the reductio ad absurdum to falsify the arguments you attempt to justify your belief that “god” is a fact.

Because saying anything is possible and Gods and Leprechauns are impossible is contradictory.....It is absurd.

Have you reached Australia yet?

You may now collect your arse in a sling, as they say.

It’s such a pity you have no understanding of irony.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What a tangled web of ignorance, incomprehension and straw manning you weave. In the sure knowledge that you’ll do exactly the same to the rebuttals to it, for what it’s worth…

Leprechauns are ridiculous because there's no good reason to think they exist.

Yes and what reasons have been put forward for Leprechauns?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes and what reasons have been put forward for Leprechauns?

Are you trolling here are are you seriously not understanding a word of what's being said?

No-one argues for leprechauns. When the arguments you try to justify your belief "god" work just as well to justify the belief "leprechauns" though, then that tell you something about the quality of the arguments.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Are you trolling here are are you seriously not understanding a word of what's being said?

No-one argue for leprechauns. When the arguments you try to justify your belief "god" work just as well to justify the belief "leprechauns" though, then that tell you something about the quality of the arguments.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Again, is that a bad thing? You must have a reason.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Again, is that a bad thing? You must have a reason.

What are to even trying to say here?

It's not that it's a "bad" thing but that it's a wrong thing. It's as wrong as alchemy and astrology (subjective) are compared with chemistry and astronomy (objective). Or for that matter as theology (subjective) is compared with philosophy (objective).

Oh, and having taken the time to take apart line-by-line your recent litanies of straw men, lies, dull misunderstandings and incomprehensions I see you've just ignored all those rebuttals to slide sideways into another piece of poorly thought out irrelevance.

Why do you do this?   
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What are to even trying to say here?

It's not that it's a "bad" thing but that it's a wrong thing. It's as wrong as alchemy and astrology (subjective) are compared with chemistry and astronomy (objective). Or for that matter as theology (subjective) is compared with philosophy (objective).

Oh, and having taken the time to take apart line-by-line your recent litanies of straw men, lies, dull misunderstandings and incomprehensions I see you've just ignored all those rebuttals to slide sideways into another piece of poorly thought out irrelevance.

Why do you do this?   
 

You are doing it again! God is wrong because astrology is wrong? Bald meaningless assertion. Accompanied by people who think you must be saying something profound.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are doing it again! God is wrong because astrology is wrong?

For fuck's sake. Can you not read or something, or do you so struggle with comprehension that you must misrepresent everything that's said here?

Where on earth have I said "God is wrong because astrology is wrong"? I'll give you a clue - I said no such thing.

Yet again...the arguments used to justify the claim "god" are epistemically equivalent to the arguments used to justify astrology. Or for that matter leprechaunology.

Look, if the concept is above your intellectual pay grade then at least have the decency to say so rather than keep misrepresenting it.

Bald meaningless assertion.

It probably would be if anyone had said it. No-one has though.

Accompanied by people who think you must be saying something profound.

Any attempt profundity would be wasted on you. For now, i can't even get you to grasp simple reasoning without you straw manning it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

For fuck's sake. Can you not read or something, or do you so struggle with comprehension that you must misrepresent everything that's said here?

Where on earth have I said "God is wrong because astrology is wrong"? I'll give you a clue - I said no such thing.

Yet again...the arguments used to justify the claim "god" are epistemically equivalent to the arguments used to justify astrology. Or for that matter leprechaunology.

Look, if the concept is above your intellectual pay grade then at least have the decency to say so rather than keep misrepresenting it.

It probably would be if anyone had said it. No-one has though.

Any attempt profundity would be wasted on you. For now, i can't even get you to grasp simple reasoning without you straw manning it.

And God is wrong how then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And God is wrong how then?

I read a piece about trolling a while ago that explained the psychological profiles of people who do it. It seemed rather sad to me.   

[Stranger]

And God is wrong how then?

Jeez, have you really not got it into your head that this is all about the reasons used to justify god claims?