DSenette wrote:i'm not accepting axioms of anything. i'm not making commentary about the way ANYTHING is, or how it started. YOU ARE.
Buh? You kick started this whole thing with saying that Christianity could have may have probably did start as a practical joke.
DSenette wrote:so, to the "content" argument, we are (contrary to your blathering) are on the same page. CONTENT OF THE BELIEF has no direct bearing on whether or not the belief is "wacky". so if you believe in yaweh, God, Allah, the tooth fairy, or otherwise, your level of evidence and proof are exactly the same, so all UNSUBSTANTIATED FAITHS should be treated exactly the same. a christian can't call a hindu "wacky" for their beliefs because the christian has no more proof than the hindu.
Yes, which is why I've never argued the content of a faith having any connection to it's legitimacy as a religion vs a cult. YOU did.
DSenette wrote:what you're not getting is the point that you keep trying to stick on, that a faith that was set out as a jest, couldn't somehow, at some point could be viewed as NOT in jest some time in the future.
I understood your point perfectly, which is why I responded, in my last post, with:
Izawwlgood wrote:Very much so. What renders that point irrelevant to the conversation at hand is by placing the creation in the past, and obfuscating the context of it's intent/inception, you are once again making an argument to the VALIDITY of the faith. Again, I'm not interested in arguing validity here; God, space wizards, pantheons, souls that are facets of the one true SameSoul, elephants riding turtles... None of these are any more or less VALID than either of the others, and you won't hear me argue otherwise.
Because again, the thing you don't seem to get is that when talking about our hypothetical crazy guy who accepts the FSM as a religion, the thing that makes him crazy is that he KNOWS the religion is created as a parody, as ironic, as a jest. If you remove that knowledge, that is, place the faith 2,000 years in the past, then that same guy is (at least a little bit) less crazy, because he isn't following a faith with the knowledge that it is actually one big joke.
DSenette wrote:so, at that point, you can't use "it was started as a joke" to call someone wacky for believing in something really, because they may not have gotten the "this shit is a joke" memo.
This hypothetical person you are talking about now, who simply 'didn't get the memo' is a shifted goal post. I agree with you on this point; it's just not particularly relevant in a conversation about someone who did 'get the memo'.
DSenette wrote:it's called listing options dick. read em. if you agree with what was said in the quote (i.e. that you can't use content as a basis for deciding whether it's wacky or not) then move along.
Gladly; I'm addressing the argument at hand, not a bunch of tangential vaguely related hypotheticals.
Watch your fucking tone with me, I'm getting awfully sick of your attitude.
DSenette wrote:except no? no where in this thread (and again, point to a fucking quote) have i said that all believers are wacky.
I said argument fumbles. One example was when you stated that the FSM wasn't a parody religion, it was just a religion created ironically to make a joke about religions.
DSenette wrote:i stated (and clarified ONCE AGAIN) that all believers in the unsubstantiated are believing with the EXACT SAME level of proof. so someone believing in God has the EXACT SAME level of proof as someone believing in the tooth fairy, so calling one wacky (based on content of belief) and one not wacky is disingenuous at best.
Yes, I'm really not sure why you keep bringing this up; I am not arguing that the content of any given belief is more or less valid than the content of another.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.