Your problem

LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Your problem

I'm a pretty simple guy. I enjoy eating macaroni and cheese. I like to eat mine with a fork. My friend prefers a spoon. It would seem to me that, rationally, a spoon would be a more efficient tool for macaroni consumption. Using a spoon, one could scoop up more macaroni with less effort, and finish eating more quickly. And yet I use a fork. Why? Because eating efficiency is not my concern? Certainly not; I shovel as much macaroni into my mouth as I can get onto the fork. So why? Why do I insist on eating with a fork?  The answer, of course, is simple. I eat with a fork because I want to. I like eating with the fork.

 

So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

 

On the other hand, I suppose a spork would provide even more efficiency... 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Forget the scooping and

Forget the scooping and shoveling, put it in a blender and drink it. Then the spoon and fork companies will go out of business and the price of the stock I own in Hamilton-Beach will skyrocket.....Bwah ha ha ha ha ha.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I only use spoons to eat my

I only use spoons to eat my macaroni.  This is because according to a personal experience, the spoon told me I'd burn for eternity if I used a fork.  I figure even if there's only a one in a million chance that the spoon is right, I just can't risk it because there are no croco-ducks.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
You know I've heard that

You know I've heard that using a fork on macaroni and cheese is a gateway to unprotected homosexual activity and crack cocaine usage, so be careful.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: You know

Sapient wrote:

You know I've heard that using a fork on macaroni and cheese is a gateway to unprotected homosexual activity and crack cocaine usage, so be careful.

 

 
Promise you won't tell anyone I once bought a fork from a gay prostitute.  I never used it, I got it home and threw it away and threw myself before the spoon in tears. I was tempted, but I threw it away.


Andyy
Andyy's picture
Posts: 182
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

 

So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

 

It breaks my heart to see you using the fork.  I know the fork will kill you.  SO PLEASE STOP USING IT.  Trust me.  I know.  I used to use a fork too.  If you knew there was a bomb in a hospital, you would do all you could to go in and save as many as you could, right?? 


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: I'm

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I'm a pretty simple guy. I enjoy eating macaroni and cheese. I like to eat mine with a fork. My friend prefers a spoon. It would seem to me that, rationally, a spoon would be a more efficient tool for macaroni consumption. Using a spoon, one could scoop up more macaroni with less effort, and finish eating more quickly. And yet I use a fork. Why? Because eating efficiency is not my concern? Certainly not; I shovel as much macaroni into my mouth as I can get onto the fork. So why? Why do I insist on eating with a fork? The answer, of course, is simple. I eat with a fork because I want to. I like eating with the fork.

 

So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

 

On the other hand, I suppose a spork would provide even more efficiency...

 

You can go right along and continue to use the fork.  But by your own admition you know the spoon is better.  This would make you a closet aforker, despite you going through the motions and continuing to use the fork, and really just makes your life a lie.  I would even suggest that by continuing to use the fork you are really just insulting the fork and other fork users by pretending that the fork is better. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13674
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Sapient wrote: You know

Sapient wrote:

You know I've heard that using a fork on macaroni and cheese is a gateway to unprotected homosexual activity and crack cocaine usage, so be careful.

 

DAMN IT DAMN MY PARENTS! THEY RAISED ME ON A FORK!

FORK YOU MOMMY AND DADDY FORK YOU!

(sniff sniff, cry cry) I've been in and out of rehab all my life because they made me use a fork. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: I'm

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I'm a pretty simple guy. I enjoy eating macaroni and cheese. I like to eat mine with a fork. My friend prefers a spoon. It would seem to me that, rationally, a spoon would be a more efficient tool for macaroni consumption. Using a spoon, one could scoop up more macaroni with less effort, and finish eating more quickly. And yet I use a fork. Why? Because eating efficiency is not my concern? Certainly not; I shovel as much macaroni into my mouth as I can get onto the fork. So why? Why do I insist on eating with a fork?  The answer, of course, is simple. I eat with a fork because I want to. I like eating with the fork.

 

So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

 

On the other hand, I suppose a spork would provide even more efficiency... 

To me the Fork is Religion, the Spoon is a Rationality, and the macaroni is Information. When using the fork/religion you pick and choose which macaroni/information you want to use according to how well or how much it fits to your fork/religion....

But when using the Spoon/Rationality your able to get more out of the bowl of macaroni/information without picking and choosing according to how well it fits. And in the end it doesn't leave a big mess on your face, lol... (take that last part how ever you understand it Smiling

Slimm,

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


SamSexton
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-05-18
User is offlineOffline
If you already understand

If you already understand the benefits in using the spoon, i suggest you should use it. Possibly you have many friends who use a fork so it could be hard to admit to them that you have chosen to use a spoon but if they are true friends they should be supportive.

 

Be aware that neither the spoon nor the fork wil be able to carry all of the macaroni but the spoon will always be striving to carry more wheras the fork is constantly trying to maintain what ithas already determined it can carry


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
I appreciate (most of) the

I appreciate (most of) the responses.

 Tarpan: I never said that the spoon was better, but rather that it was the rational choice because it was more efficient. But, supposing I had stated such, I don't think it would matter. I doubt that the fork, being a fork, can be insulted by my using it despite it being the "lesser" of the two utensils. Forks, as far as I am aware, don't have feelings of jealousy, or a sense of honor to tarnish. I could be wrong though.

Slimm: An excellent analogy. Not quite what I had in mind, but it was a very astute way of connecting ideas.

SamSexton:  I will take your suggestion into consideration, but I still don't understand why I should have to use the spoon. And I also don't understand why you, as a spoon user, expect my fork using friends to support my use of a spoon, when you do not support my use of the fork. This seems like something of a double standard to me.

As for the rest of the responders... well, let's just say that I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that they allowed children to be moderators and administrators on this website. Undecided


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Streak, rationality is

Streak, rationality is instrumental.
If you wanted to eat your pasta in the most efficient way possible then it would be irrational to eat as you do, because you would be doing what goes against your own wishes. Pretty silly, eh?
No one said that is was irrational to wish to eat inefficiently.

In the same way, once people want to know the truth there are rational and irrational ways of going about this. Sounds like you don't really care about the truth so in that sense religious beliefs aren't irrational. Then again, there might be things that you value that would benefit from a better commitment to truth, so maybe your apathy on truth is irrational in that way.

Your last paragraph there was surprising as your previous posts gave me the impression that you were against taking religion too seriously? Puzzled


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Tarpan: I never said that the spoon was better, but rather that it was the rational choice because it was more efficient. But, supposing I had stated such, I don't think it would matter. I doubt that the fork, being a fork, can be insulted by my using it despite it being the "lesser" of the two utensils. Forks, as far as I am aware, don't have feelings of jealousy, or a sense of honor to tarnish. I could be wrong though.

If I'm comparing rational vs irrational, then the rational choice is the better choice.

I assumed based on your post and seeing as this is a forum where rationiality vs religion are the topics I thought it fair and rational to assume that this was in fact an anaolgy on religion so I took it the logical step further. The fact that you turned it into a literal interpretation to me either means that you're avoiding the turth of my response or you truely did not acknolwedge the assumed intent of your post when you made it.

I hope that you should still see my point if you removed the 4 words that embed the anthropomorphic fork into my analogy. 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I find a fork more

I find a fork more efficient. You can prong a large mouthful in one quick action. Scooping with a spoon could lead to several peices falling off. But then again I'm dyspraxic and therefore badly co-ordinated.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Slimm

Slimm wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

I'm a pretty simple guy. I enjoy eating macaroni and cheese. I like to eat mine with a fork. My friend prefers a spoon. It would seem to me that, rationally, a spoon would be a more efficient tool for macaroni consumption. Using a spoon, one could scoop up more macaroni with less effort, and finish eating more quickly. And yet I use a fork. Why? Because eating efficiency is not my concern? Certainly not; I shovel as much macaroni into my mouth as I can get onto the fork. So why? Why do I insist on eating with a fork?  The answer, of course, is simple. I eat with a fork because I want to. I like eating with the fork.

 

So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

 

On the other hand, I suppose a spork would provide even more efficiency... 

To me the Fork is Religion, the Spoon is a Rationality, and the macaroni is Information. When using the fork/religion you pick and choose which macaroni/information you want to use according to how well or how much it fits to your fork/religion....

But when using the Spoon/Rationality your able to get more out of the bowl of macaroni/information without picking and choosing according to how well it fits. And in the end it doesn't leave a big mess on your face, lol... (take that last part how ever you understand it Smiling

Slimm,

Brilliant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Strafio: I don't take

Strafio: I don't take religion very seriously. You are correct in that estimate. I also don't take paying taxes very seriously either; however, I take the care to ensure that the job gets done. And I would expect that anyone who was trying to convince me to not pay taxes anymore, to the extent of running a website in an effort to encourage the achievement of such a movement, would take the issue fairly seriously.

Tarpan: I disagree that rational is necessarily better than irrational. As to the religion analogy, if you want to see it that way, then if the "fork" I "use" is a "false utensil," then it would be impossible for me to offend it, dishonor it, or insult it in any way. I hope that clears things up.


econgineer
econgineer's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
streak, I accept that you

streak, I accept that you prefer to use a fork for whatever makes your macaroni-and-cheese-eating experience more pleasant. In fact, if someone tells you that you cannot use a fork, I will defend you, despite the fact that I don't fork. But if most of the country were forkers, and they passed laws that made spooners unable to have the rights of forkers (e.g. tax benefits for fork shrines with their multi-tined steeples. the right to enjoy their cheesy goodness with others of the same gender ,the rights to run for political office, the requirement to pledge to some forking deity), I would fight against that. If the forkers told lies about how forking is more efficient than spooning, and wanted that taught to our impressionable youngsters, I would fight that. If forkers attempted to scare people into forking with lies about eternal damnation in a pool of boiling cheddar, I would fight that. If the forkers told lies that terrorist attacks and hurricanes were the result of my spoonage displeasing some forking entity, i would fight that. And lastly, if people were killing one another to please some forking deity, I would really want them to become spooners.

By the way, do you have a particular way of forking that is better? Are 4-tine forks better than 3-tine ones. And will the 3-tine ones go to a 4-tine hell? And some people spear their macaroni and insert in their mouths right-side up and the others insert upside down. Which of those will go to the cheesy hell?

 

Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911


ABx
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-02-26
User is offlineOffline
There is no spoon...

There is no spoon...


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: So

LosingStreak06 wrote:

So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

 

simple. i take away your fork, so that all you have is the spoon. 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Strafio: I don't take religion very seriously. You are correct in that estimate. I also don't take paying taxes very seriously either; however, I take the care to ensure that the job gets done. And I would expect that anyone who was trying to convince me to not pay taxes anymore, to the extent of running a website in an effort to encourage the achievement of such a movement, would take the issue fairly seriously.


Fair enough.
As it happens, the movement it's really aimed at people like you.
I'm not convinced that you're really irrational.
The militant theists and atheists have one thing in common - they find the truth extremely important. Because of this, they ought to use the most efficient means to find the truth - make good use of reason.

You, on the other hand, are apathetic about questions of religion.
God might exist, might not, and you don't really care.
Likewise, you don't really care if you eat pasta inefficiently.
However, if there was an objective that you really cared about (like say, convincing the RRS that reason isn't 'all that' Eye-wink) then I bet you'd use reason to the best of your ability in order to achieve your goal, if you genuinely wanted to acheive it that is.

What might be said is that your apathy on religious issues (your 'not caring' about reason has to say in this area) might stem from not realising what certain religious folks will do to you if we let them go on their way unchallenged.
In order to dissuade you from such apathy, can I recommend the film Jesus Camp? I garauntee that it'll make you very angry, anti-fundamentalist and possibly even anti-Christian! Smiling


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Slimm

Slimm wrote:
LosingStreak06 wrote:

I'm a pretty simple guy. I enjoy eating macaroni and cheese. I like to eat mine with a fork. My friend prefers a spoon. It would seem to me that, rationally, a spoon would be a more efficient tool for macaroni consumption. Using a spoon, one could scoop up more macaroni with less effort, and finish eating more quickly. And yet I use a fork. Why? Because eating efficiency is not my concern? Certainly not; I shovel as much macaroni into my mouth as I can get onto the fork. So why? Why do I insist on eating with a fork? The answer, of course, is simple. I eat with a fork because I want to. I like eating with the fork.

 

So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

 

On the other hand, I suppose a spork would provide even more efficiency...

To me the Fork is Religion, the Spoon is a Rationality, and the macaroni is Information. When using the fork/religion you pick and choose which macaroni/information you want to use according to how well or how much it fits to your fork/religion....

But when using the Spoon/Rationality your able to get more out of the bowl of macaroni/information without picking and choosing according to how well it fits. And in the end it doesn't leave a big mess on your face, lol... (take that last part how ever you understand it Smiling

Slimm,

I like your connections slim.. but hang on both fork and spoon prerequisite an awareness that you are eating macaroni, in that case religion is more like using a Straw.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Fair

Strafio wrote:
Fair enough. As it happens, the movement it's really aimed at people like you. I'm not convinced that you're really irrational.

Not from my lack of trying, I hope. So if you don't think I am irrational, and it is plainly obvious that I attempt to be or at least appear so, then what is my motive?

 

Strafio wrote:
The militant theists and atheists have one thing in common - they find the truth extremely important.

 I wholeheartedly agree, and I often detest them for doing so.

Strafio wrote:
Because of this, they ought to use the most efficient means to find the truth - make good use of reason. You, on the other hand, are apathetic about questions of religion.

 I am apathetic towards other people's answers, perhaps, but not my own.

Strafio wrote:
God might exist, might not, and you don't really care. Likewise, you don't really care if you eat pasta inefficiently. However, if there was an objective that you really cared about (like say, convincing the RRS that reason isn't 'all that' Eye-wink) then I bet you'd use reason to the best of your ability in order to achieve your goal, if you genuinely wanted to acheive it that is.

What exactly makes a desire genuine? Is my desire for you rationalists to stop pestering people like me ingenuine because I do not wish to argue with reason in order to convince you to do so?

Strafio wrote:
What might be said is that your apathy on religious issues (your 'not caring' about reason has to say in this area) might stem from not realising what certain religious folks will do to you if we let them go on their way unchallenged. In order to dissuade you from such apathy, can I recommend the film Jesus Camp? I garauntee that it'll make you very angry, anti-fundamentalist and possibly even anti-Christian! Smiling

I've seen it. Can't say it really changed my outlook on things. 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: So

LosingStreak06 wrote:

So if you don't think I am irrational, and it is plainly obvious that I attempt to be or at least appear so, then what is my motive?


I think you just misunderstand what we mean by rational.

Quote:

I wholeheartedly agree, and I often detest them for [caring so much about truth]


Interesting.
How many things are you responsible for in life?
In order to meet these responsibilities you need to be able to deal with them as accurately and as efficiently as possible. Now maybe your responsibilities don't require the sort of truth we are looking for, but ours do... well, not me - I'm on here as a hobby.
But many of the American's here are fighting for their rights as citizens.

Quote:

I am apathetic towards other people's answers, perhaps, but not my own.


In what way are your answers important?
Aesthetically?
Practical purpose?

Quote:

What exactly makes a desire genuine?


That you'll do what is necessary to fullfill it.

Quote:

Is my desire for you rationalists to stop pestering people like me ingenuine because I do not wish to argue with reason in order to convince you to do so?


Lol! Well how are you going to convince if not with reason?
Besides, the original post in this topic looks like an attempt at reasoning to me...

Quote:

I've seen [Bible Camp]. Can't say it really changed my outlook on things.


For real? Puzzled
Didn't it scare you in the least?
Didn't you feel bad for the children being indoctrinated with such guilt and fear?

Lol! I guess you're never going to be motivated against religious politics then! If that film didn't strike a nerve enough for action, how did we at the RRS manage it? How could you possibly find us more annoying than evangelical Christianity?! Shocked


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Tarpan: I disagree that rational is necessarily better than irrational. As to the religion analogy, if you want to see it that way, then if the "fork" I "use" is a "false utensil," then it would be impossible for me to offend it, dishonor it, or insult it in any way. I hope that clears things up.

I'm not suggesting that the fork is the false utensil. I'm suggesting that you are seeing it as the false utensil but still honoring by 'going through the motions'. And that if you are right in your claim that the fork is the right utensil, you will actually have dishonored the true utensil by conforming to it's ways despite your disbelief.

You don't score any points with the fork just for playing along. 


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
this losingstreak character

this losingstreak character is a troll.  he's deliberately trying to get a reaction, which he gets a rise out of because it gives him a false illusion of power and control over people.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
also, if you look at his

also, if you look at his posts, he's clearly cherry-picking when to be rational and when not to be in order to fit his agenda/worldview.  you can't argue with someone who is willing to argue rationally.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Crying "troll" are we? Fair

Crying "troll" are we? Fair enough.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
BREAKING NEWS

BREAKING NEWS

LOSINGSTREAK MAY ACTUALLY NOT BE A TROLL BUT HE IS STILL A WASTE OF TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE LOGICALLY.

LOSINGSTREAK ADMITS AND BRAGS ABOUT HIS ROCKSTAR TOO-COOL-FOR-SCHOOL IRRATIONALITY. MORE AT 11.

News link!

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

BREAKING NEWS

LOSINGSTREAK MAY ACTUALLY NOT BE A TROLL BUT HE IS STILL A WASTE OF TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE LOGICALLY.

Pffffft. I could have told you that. 

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
LOSINGSTREAK ADMITS AND BRAGS ABOUT HIS ROCKSTAR TOO-COOL-FOR-SCHOOL IRRATIONALITY. MORE AT 11.

News link!

"Too-cool-for-school"? If you say so. I for one wich you'd make up your mind about me. First I'm a troll, then I'm not a troll, I'm just  crazy and stupid. Inconsistent much? How long will it be before you change your mind again, I wonder? I'd appreciate it if you didn't bog down my topic with such flagrant off-topic posts. If you don't have anything to say about the subject at hand, then why bother ruining it for everyone else?

In any case, it's about time that I got around to responding to all the peopl who are still taking the time to chat with me about this interesting quandary.

Tarpan: The nature of my fork is such that I cannot "score points" with it either way. Unlike other forks, my fork isn't anthropomorphized nearly to death. It isn't my the fork of my mother and my father, or their parents, back and back and back. Mine is a new fork, unpolished and simple.

 Strafio:

Quote:
How many things are you responsible for in life?

Things that I am responsible for do not interfere with my views and (mis)understandings of reality.

Quote:
In what way are your answers important?
Aesthetically?
Practical purpose?

My answers are important to me in that they are my own. If I cannot trust my own understandings, and my own feelings towards a certain thing, then how am I to trust them towards anything? You could tell me that the spoon is better, but if I cannot trust my own choice in the fork, then how could I ever be able to trust your choice of the spoon? This rationale is the basis of my own irrationality.

Quote:
[what makes a desire genuine is ]That you'll do what is necessary to fullfill it.

Would it be accurate then to say that a man who desires money, but does not want to rob a bank, does not really desire money? What about a man who has been paralyzed by an automobile accident? Would it be fair to say that the man doesn't really want to walk again, because he doesn't do the impossible and unsever his spinal cord?

Quote:
Lol! Well how are you going to convince if not with reason?

That is my own problem, it would seem.

Quote:
Besides, the original post in this topic looks like an attempt at reasoning to me...

Reasoning with what, pray tell? I simply asked for your take on a situation as I see it.

Quote:
For real? Puzzled
Didn't it scare you in the least?
Didn't you feel bad for the children being indoctrinated with such guilt and fear?

 I feel bad about a lot of things. I feel scared about a lot of things. I often find that most of the things I feel bad or afraid of are out of my control. Bad things happen. To coin an overused phrase, "life isn't fair." It would hardly be fitting for me to decide who to help, since I obviously cannot help everyone.

Quote:
Lol! I guess you're never going to be motivated against religious politics then! If that film didn't strike a nerve enough for action, how did we at the RRS manage it? How could you possibly find us more annoying than evangelical Christianity?! Shocked

I'm not afraid of the religious right. I know exactly what they want, and I am fairly certain that they will suffer the same fate as all those before them who have tried to stand in the way of progress. No, my friend, the way I see things, it is you who hold the reigns of the future. That is why you stir a reaction in me that the religious right never will. I may be irrational, but I'm not stupid.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
i like how losingstreak

i like how losingstreak tries to justify his embrace on irrationality with rationality. if there is ever an epitomous example of self-contradictory irony and self-denial, this is it boys and girls lol.

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal wrote: i

Sodium Pentothal wrote:
i like how losingstreak tries to justify his embrace on irrationality with rationality. if there is ever an epitomous example of irony and self-denial, this is it boys and girls lol.

If you really understood deliberate irrationalism, then you would understand that it relies on rationalistic thinking in order to create contrast. 


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't understand any of

I don't understand any of you all!

I start with a fork.  I guess I enjoy "stabbing" the macaroni pieces one by one.  It also takes a bit longer (inefficient, I guess), but it makes the enjoyable experience of eating the macaroni and cheese last longer.  This is a good thing, in my opinion.

BUT - I finish with a spoon so I can scrape up the last little bits of the cheese. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Two Whole Pages on this

Two Whole Pages on this Thread!?

You need to quit eating mac n cheese. Have a Hot dog. 


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Im right there with you on

Im right there with you on the whole fork and spoon thing but i dont think its anywhere near an acurate analogy.

compairing a fork and a spoon to religion would actually fit better if you were compairing Catholics to Protestants, not Athiests to Theists.

In that sense the fork is Catholic and the spoon is Protestant and the Mac N Cheese is Religion.

Athiesm in that analogy isnt even an eating utensil and we dont even recognize Mac N Cheese as a food.

Theists can use a Fork or Spoon or chopsticks for all we care, because your Mac N Cheese is Imaginary.

So its not a matter of convincing you to quit using a fork and try the spoon.

You should just start eating real food.

 

High Pope 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I would like to point out

I would like to point out that whether you use a fork or spoon, you end up eating the same macaroni.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Things that I am responsible for do not interfere with my views and (mis)understandings of reality.


The connection might not be obvious, but there are subtle ways that your understanding of reality can affect you. For example, believing that your 'spirit' is mystical will encourage you to look for 'mystical' solutions to problems you might have, when a more naturalistic outlook would push you towards a solution of better understanding.

Quote:

My answers are important to me in that they are my own. If I cannot trust my own understandings, and my own feelings towards a certain thing, then how am I to trust them towards anything? You could tell me that the spoon is better, but if I cannot trust my own choice in the fork, then how could I ever be able to trust your choice of the spoon? This rationale is the basis of my own irrationality.


I think you've just misunderstood what irrationality is.
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't conform with what the 'clever people' say is irrational. Blind conformity wouldn't be rational - it would be blind! So far you've given me no reason to think that you are genuinely irrational.

Take your example of the spoon.
Should you take my word for it that it is better?
Is it irrational to be sceptical of my advice?
You've given your reason why you prefer the fork - it appeals to your aesthetics despite the inefficiency. Nothing irrational about that at all.

Quote:

Would it be accurate then to say that a man who desires money, but does not want to rob a bank, does not really desire money?


This man clearly has a greater desire not to break the law of his moral code. In such a case, a genuine desire would be to do what is necessary but respecting the other desires as well, like going about the ambition lawfully and ethically.

Quote:

Reasoning with what, pray tell? I simply asked for your take on a situation as I see it.


The situation was proposed as a counter example to the ideal "one should be rational". In my opinion, the counter example failed, but it was still a correct approach to reasoning.

Quote:

I feel bad about a lot of things. I feel scared about a lot of things. I often find that most of the things I feel bad or afraid of are out of my control. Bad things happen. To coin an overused phrase, "life isn't fair." It would hardly be fitting for me to decide who to help, since I obviously cannot help everyone.


Yes, but as a human being you will emotionally react to things that you have no control over. It is often a major point of interest in stories and films. What's more, just having an opinion on the matter can be enough to help. Christianity relies on favourable public opinion. The more people to hold opinion against it, the weaker it becomes.

Quote:

I'm not afraid of the religious right. I know exactly what they want, and I am fairly certain that they will suffer the same fate as all those before them who have tried to stand in the way of progress.


Only because in everyday, progressers have won battle.
It hasn't always been that way.
Several cultures, intellectual movements in the past have been closed down by aggressive politics. Not that it's going to happen here, but that's because of people like the RRS standing up to put things right. It's people like us that ensure that progress does prevail.

Quote:

No, my friend, the way I see things, it is you who hold the reigns of the future. That is why you stir a reaction in me that the religious right never will. I may be irrational, but I'm not stupid.


You're neither.
If the RRS seem militant and aggressive to you, bear in mind that it's a political reaction to the problems caused by aggressive evangelicals. If America was to become like England then the need for militancy would disappear and RRS' 'aggressiveness' would die out with it.

Watch some of the RRS Home Videos
(I especially recommend the one with Rook's cat and the one about emotionality.)
These videos will show you the people behind the RRS and that although they might seem to come down hard against religion in forums, this is political business rather than bitter personality.


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I would

wavefreak wrote:
I would like to point out that whether you use a fork or spoon, you end up eating the same macaroni.

Same macaroni!? Yummy imaginary macaroni!? At an imaginary tea party in the sky!

I DONT BELIEVE IN MACARONI!

YOUR MACARONI IS DANGEROUS AND DIVISIVE!

YOUR MACARONI IS POISON IN THE BELLY OF ALL HUMANITY!

 

You should try Spaghetti!

TOUCH ITS NOODLY APPENDAGE! BE AN FSM PIRATE AND HELP STOP GLOBAL WARMING! EAT OF THE GOLDEN APPLE OF DISCORD AND HAIL THE ALMIGHTY GODDESS! SEEK OUT THE ALL SEEING DISEMBODIED HEAD OF THE MIGHTY BOB DOBBS AND DRAW FROM HIS ETERNAL PIPE THE WISDOM OF SUBGENIUSNESS! FOR THESE ARE THE ONLY TRUE MACARONI IN ALL THEIR HIGH MACARONIOUSNESS! BOW DOWN AND PRAY FOR FORGIVENESS FOR YOUR BLASPHEMOUS WAYS! REPENT TO LORD OMAR KHYAMM RAVENHURST KSC AND DON THE EVERLASTING SNUBLESS CROWN OF CHAOS!

how idiotic did that all sound?

not anywhere near as idiotic as what you wrote, but at least mine was kind of funny.

 

High Pope

P.S. Yummy Macaroni to FEED THE TROLL!


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: I think

Strafio wrote:
I think you've just misunderstood what irrationality is.

 Perhaps you could explain it to me then?

Quote:
You seem to think that anyone who doesn't conform with what the 'clever people' say is irrational.

I wouldn't go so far as to call rational people "clever," but I see where you are going with that.

Quote:
Blind conformity wouldn't be rational - it would be blind!

It seems to me that with no consistent basis to judge with is rational, either the majority would make the rule, or the most intelligent would.

Quote:
So far you've given me no reason to think that you are genuinely irrational.

Here I would have guessed that my theism would be enough to do that. Very well, then, what will it take to convince you?

Quote:
Take your example of the spoon. Should you take my word for it that it is better? Is it irrational to be sceptical of my advice? You've given your reason why you prefer the fork - it appeals to your aesthetics despite the inefficiency. Nothing irrational about that at all.

It would seem that in this area, my analogy falls short of perfection (as analogies often do). Obviously, we are not talking about forks and spoons. And while it would not be irrational to opt to use a fork out of desire, it would I think be considered irrational to elect to believe something to be true out of desire, and not out of supporting emprical evidence.

Quote:
This man clearly has a greater desire not to break the law of his moral code. In such a case, a genuine desire would be to do what is necessary but respecting the other desires as well, like going about the ambition lawfully and ethically.

So I could (rationally... bleh) argue that my desire to reason with rationalists is outweighed by my desire to avoid reasoning. 

Quote:
The situation was proposed as a counter example to the ideal "one should be rational". In my opinion, the counter example failed, but it was still a correct approach to reasoning.

If you insist. 

 

Quote:
Yes, but as a human being you will emotionally react to things that you have no control over. It is often a major point of interest in stories and films. What's more, just having an opinion on the matter can be enough to help. Christianity relies on favourable public opinion. The more people to hold opinion against it, the weaker it becomes.

I would argue otherwise, seeing as Christianity managed to survive throughout it's infancy, despite being very much looked down upon, and suffering from a very unfavorable public opinion. 

Quote:
Only because in everyday, progressers have won battle. It hasn't always been that way. Several cultures, intellectual movements in the past have been closed down by aggressive politics. Not that it's going to happen here, but that's because of people like the RRS standing up to put things right. It's people like us that ensure that progress does prevail.

 And I am merely here to hopefully ensure that, when progress prevails, those who bring it decide to spare me.

Quote:
You're neither [irrational nor stupid]. If the RRS seem militant and aggressive to you, bear in mind that it's a political reaction to the problems caused by aggressive evangelicals. If America was to become like England then the need for militancy would disappear and RRS' 'aggressiveness' would die out with it. Watch some of the RRS Home Videos (I especially recommend the one with Rook's cat and the one about emotionality.) These videos will show you the people behind the RRS and that although they might seem to come down hard against religion in forums, this is political business rather than bitter personality.

It seems to me that, when emotions are involved, cultural physics involves neither opposite nor equal reactions. I'm well aware of how persecution works, and how often those who are oppressed are overly eager to reverse the roles. I simply want to prevent that from happening.

 

High Pope: It would seem to me that you are only seeing what you want to see (an ironic accusation coming from a theist, I'm sure). I expect you to do much better if you ever wish to get anywhere with me.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sodium Pentothal

Sodium Pentothal wrote:

BREAKING NEWS

LOSINGSTREAK MAY ACTUALLY NOT BE A TROLL BUT HE IS STILL A WASTE OF TIME TRYING TO ENGAGE LOGICALLY.

LOSINGSTREAK ADMITS AND BRAGS ABOUT HIS ROCKSTAR TOO-COOL-FOR-SCHOOL IRRATIONALITY. MORE AT 11.

News link!

What a perfect example of your childish immaturity, emotive reasoning, and irrational qualities. If I'd needed further evidence of your inability to form a cohesive and intellectual argument, this is it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
^^^ strawman!  lol

^^^ strawman!  lol


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:

LosingStreak06 wrote:

High Pope: It would seem to me that you are only seeing what you want to see (an ironic accusation coming from a theist, I'm sure). I expect you to do much better if you ever wish to get anywhere with me.


 

High Pope wrote:

Im right there with you on the whole fork and spoon thing but i dont think its anywhere near an acurate analogy.

compairing a fork and a spoon to religion would actually fit better if you were compairing Catholics to Protestants, not Athiests to Theists.

In that sense the fork is Catholic and the spoon is Protestant and the Mac N Cheese is Religion.

Athiesm in that analogy isnt even an eating utensil and we dont even recognize Mac N Cheese as a food.

Theists can use a Fork or Spoon or chopsticks for all we care, because your Mac N Cheese is Imaginary.

So its not a matter of convincing you to quit using a fork and try the spoon.

You should just start eating real food.

 

High Pope

 

When Logic didnt work the first time, I wasnt going to try it again. When you repeat the same behavior again and again but expect a different result each time its called "insanity".

Your Macaroni isnt real.

CAN WE HAVE A DIFFERENT METAPHOR PLEASE?


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
High Pope: I was talking

High Pope: I was talking about your first post, not the one in response to wavefreak. In fact, I believe that the very first independent clause you wrote was entirely wrong. I don't think you are on the same page as me at all. You are only seeing what you want to see (i.e. a theist comparing atheism to, or otherwise equating atheism to a religion). Such is not the case. The spoon isn't atheism. Try again.


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
I killed this thread. we

I killed this thread.

we both agree that the spoon cannot represent atheism if the fork represents theism.

now the burden of proof is back on you. 

 Prove to me that your Macaroni is real.

 


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
The fork doesn't represent

The fork doesn't represent theism.

Try again. 


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:

LosingStreak06 wrote:

Perhaps you could explain [reason] to me then?


Sure. Reason is our methods to distinguish right from wrong and truth from falsity. The rules of logic play an important part, rules like the law of noncontradiction. I'm sure you intuitively recognise that if someone contradicts themselves then their theory is clearly flawed.

You could say that reason is basically competent in thinking.

Quote:

It seems to me that with no consistent basis to judge with is rational, either the majority would make the rule, or the most intelligent would.


It's not always clear cut and the issues are often complex and confusing. However, there are agreed methods. For instance, everyone agrees that contradictions are bad news.

Quote:

Here I would have guessed that my theism would be enough to [prove I am irrational].


I don't believe that theism is necessarily irrational, I just believe that it often is, especially when politics are involved. To judge whether your theism is rational enough, I'd need to understand your worldview, your justifications and from there work out whether your belief is rational or not.

Another important point is that although most of RRS might think that your theism is irrational, that doesn't mean that they think you are irrational. The common belief is that many theists are rational in most areas of their life, but allow religion a free ride for some reason. Or that they are rational in their area of expertise, but for something they're not so confident on they trust their local priest pastor.

Quote:
Very well, then, what will it take to convince you?

I am judging you and your attitude on your conversation with me.
Infact, later down the page you noticed it yourself:
Quote:

So I could (rationally... bleh) argue that my desire to reason with rationalists is outweighed by my desire to avoid reasoning.


pwned!!! Laughing out loud

Quote:
while it would not be irrational to opt to use a fork out of desire, it would I think be considered irrational to elect to believe something to be true out of desire, and not out of supporting emprical evidence.

I actually disagree that we should build our beliefs from empirical evidence. I think that empirical tests make great truthmakers for claims that can be tested, but there are some of areas of knowledge where empiricism is irrelevent. The most obvious example is mathematics.

Quote:

I would argue otherwise, seeing as Christianity managed to survive throughout it's infancy, despite being very much looked down upon, and suffering from a very unfavorable public opinion.


I don't think that it was as unfavourable as made out.
While early Christians were persecuted, so were all religions that conflicted with the main religion of the day. Although what I am about to say is pure speculation, it is a possible explanation of how Christianity grew out of its infancy:

1) While irrational by modern knowledge, Christianity was heavily compatible with the philosophy of Plato, which was a large step forward from other religions of the time.
2) It combined this intellectual superiority with a theology that appealed to common people. It made claims about an absolute good and justice for downtrodden people, that ordinary people (who had never been seen as important) could be saved by just being loyal and believing.

Given the times, such a theology would be very attractive to a large number of people. The perfect combination of cutting edge philosophy and folk romanticism.

Quote:

And I am merely here to hopefully ensure that, when progress prevails, those who bring it decide to spare me.


Lol! Do you have political ambitions to force your faith on other people?
If not, the ambitions of the RRS won't really effect you.
I think I know what you're getting at.
It can seem disconcerting to see people so passionately opposed to beliefs of yours, especially when you consider your beliefs to be harmless. What you have to realise is it's not you their opposition is aimed at. It's fundamentalists.

Quote:

It seems to me that, when emotions are involved, cultural physics involves neither opposite nor equal reactions. I'm well aware of how persecution works, and how often those who are oppressed are overly eager to reverse the roles. I simply want to prevent that from happening.


Haha! What sort of oppression would you expect rationalist overlords to bring down upon you? Laughing out loud
The political goal is to enforce the ideals that most people implicitly agree with anyway - maximise prosperity and respect people's rights to believe/disbelieve. The 'destruction' of faith would be simply a matter of no longer allowing nutcases to interfere and try and bulldoze their dogma on others.

Once fundies have been forced off the secularists toes, private religious beliefs will be respected, like they are in England.


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Sure. Reason

Strafio wrote:
Sure. Reason is our methods to distinguish right from wrong and truth from falsity. The rules of logic play an important part, rules like the law of noncontradiction. I'm sure you intuitively recognise that if someone contradicts themselves then their theory is clearly flawed.

True, but I don't concern myself with flaws in theories. It just isn't the most important thing to me.

Quote:
It's not always clear cut and the issues are often complex and confusing. However, there are agreed methods. For instance, everyone agrees that contradictions are bad news.

Bad news for what? Truth? Factuality? I don't really have any concerns with those.

Quote:
I don't believe that theism is necessarily irrational, I just believe that it often is, especially when politics are involved. To judge whether your theism is rational enough, I'd need to understand your worldview, your justifications and from there work out whether your belief is rational or not. Another important point is that although most of RRS might think that your theism is irrational, that doesn't mean that they think you are irrational. The common belief is that many theists are rational in most areas of their life, but allow religion a free ride for some reason. Or that they are rational in their area of expertise, but for something they're not so confident on they trust their local priest pastor.

It would seem to me that, if irrationality is a trait that a person displays, then that person could be described as irrational. By the standard you gave, however, a person can be considered rational if he or she shows some sort of rationality (or perhaps shows more rationality than irrationality). So my next question is this: at what point is a person considered irrational?

Quote:
I actually disagree that we should build our beliefs from empirical evidence. I think that empirical tests make great truthmakers for claims that can be tested, but there are some of areas of knowledge where empiricism is irrelevent. The most obvious example is mathematics.

An excellent point, but I wouldn't consider mathematics "true" so much as I would consider it "internally consistent."

Quote:
Lol! Do you have political ambitions to force your faith on other people? If not, the ambitions of the RRS won't really effect you. I think I know what you're getting at. It can seem disconcerting to see people so passionately opposed to beliefs of yours, especially when you consider your beliefs to be harmless. What you have to realise is it's not you their opposition is aimed at. It's fundamentalists.

Unfortunately, such is not always the case. The attitudes displayed by some of the people here are, in my opinion, characteristic of more than mere political aspirations. Take a look at Sapient's reaction to my (harmless?) question. He reacted rather fanatically if you ask me. Perhaps you are right, and perhaps this movement is solely aimed at fundamentalists who try to legislate morality, false ideals, and hollow "truths." But the fact of the matter is, I'm wearing the same "Theist" badge that they are. To say that I would appreciate some discrimination would be an understatement.


Quote:
Haha! What sort of oppression would you expect rationalist overlords to bring down upon you? Laughing out loud The political goal is to enforce the ideals that most people implicitly agree with anyway - maximise prosperity and respect people's rights to believe/disbelieve. The 'destruction' of faith would be simply a matter of no longer allowing nutcases to interfere and try and bulldoze their dogma on others. Once fundies have been forced off the secularists toes, private religious beliefs will be respected, like they are in England.

I am very familiar with the quote "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." I have seen it used far too many times to be comfortable with a group bent on the removal of religion from mainstream society.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote:

LosingStreak06 wrote:

True, but I don't concern myself with flaws in theories. It just isn't the most important thing to me.

Bad news for what? Truth? Factuality? I don't really have any concerns with those.


Do do for issues that interest you.
I know this because it takes deliberate skill to make your arguments as clear and coherent as possible. In this discussion you have achieved this. I can tell you value consistency and coherency because it is implicit in your arguments.

Quote:

It would seem to me that, if irrationality is a trait that a person displays, then that person could be described as irrational. By the standard you gave, however, a person can be considered rational if he or she shows some sort of rationality (or perhaps shows more rationality than irrationality). So my next question is this: at what point is a person considered irrational?


It's like all social labels, there's no clear black and white.
Where's the line between politeness and rudeness?
Where's the line between nice and nasy?
There isn't an obvious criterion for judging. We must observe the person in question and make our judgement intuitively. We are humans in this forum and none of us are perfectly rational, just like how the nicest communities are rarely 'perfectly' nice.

The best way to understand the distinction is to compare a nice group with a nasty one, in order to grasp the overall difference. Likewise, browse some Christian forums and watch how they play with obscure Bible quotes to make abstract points. I obviously can't speak for you, but judging by this conversation I think you'd find that you have more in common with us than with them.

Quote:

An excellent point, but I wouldn't consider mathematics "true" so much as I would consider it "internally consistent."


Mathematics as a whole would better be described as internally consistent than true, but individual mathematical statements are true or false.
A bit like how 'Chess' isn't right or wrong as a whole but particular moves within chess can be right or wrong.

Quote:

Unfortunately, such is not always the case. The attitudes displayed by some of the people here are, in my opinion, characteristic of more than mere political aspirations. Take a look at Sapient's reaction to my (harmless?) question. He reacted rather fanatically if you ask me. Perhaps you are right, and perhaps this movement is solely aimed at fundamentalists who try to legislate morality, false ideals, and hollow "truths." But the fact of the matter is, I'm wearing the same "Theist" badge that they are. To say that I would appreciate some discrimination would be an understatement.


I recommend you read this topic.
Yellow Five's post speaks for all the atheists in this forum who might've mis-judged you. We get a lot of trash in here and while you might've asked a question earnestly, when someone is used to being baited, it is easy for them to come to expect it.
I know that's not rational but like we always say, rationality is our ideal and reality we are only human.

On the question of labels, I personally think we should have another label called "fucking cool theist" that we could dish out to the ones who have earned some respect. Eye-wink


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
LosingStreak06 wrote: I'm

LosingStreak06 wrote:

I'm a pretty simple guy. I enjoy eating macaroni and cheese. I like to eat mine with a fork.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The fork doesn't represent theism.

 

LosingStreak06 wrote:
My friend prefers a spoon. It would seem to me that, rationally, a spoon would be a more efficient tool for macaroni consumption.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The fork doesn't represent theism.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Using a spoon, one could scoop up more macaroni with less effort, and finish eating more quickly. And yet I use a fork. Why?

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The fork doesn't represent theism.

 

LosingStreak06 wrote:
Because eating efficiency is not my concern? Certainly not; I shovel as much macaroni into my mouth as I can get onto the fork.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The fork doesn't represent theism.

 

LosingStreak06 wrote:
So why? Why do I insist on eating with a fork? The answer, of course, is simple. I eat with a fork because I want to. I like eating with the fork.

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The fork doesn't represent theism.

 

LosingStreak06 wrote:
So your problem is thus: how do you convince me to use the spoon instead?

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The fork doesn't represent theism.

 

LosingStreak06 wrote:
The fork doesn't represent theism.

 

I Am Incredibly sorry bro! I actually thought this whole time we were using a metaphor about macaroni and cheese to draw a parallel between religion and atheism!

Boy do I feel silly.

Considering the location of this thread (it is in an atheist forum in an atheist website) I was lead to believe that we were talking about religion.

I had no Idea until just now that you were honestly looking for a reason to eat macaroni and cheese with a spoon, so i did some research for you.

http://www.kraft.com/100/innovations/kraftmac.html

Hope this helps.

 


High Pope
High Pope's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
break this down for me

break this down for me because you are right, I cant seem to interpret this any other way, so I need you to explain what everything represents so I can more adequately argue with you.

here is how I interpreted your meaning:

loosingstreak06 wrote:
I'm a pretty simple guy. I enjoy eating macaroni and cheese. I like to eat mine with a fork.

your fork represents your religious views and macaroni and cheese represents life.

loosingstreak06 wrote:
My friend prefers a spoon.

your friend has a spoon representing an alterative religious view (possibly atheism?) this makes him more efficient at eating macaroni and cheese thus a metaphor for how he lives his life.

BELOW IS WHERE I GET A LITTLE LOST:

loosingstreak06 wrote:
It would seem to me that, rationally,

here is where I though you were talking about atheism with the "rational" reference.

loosingstreak06 wrote:
a spoon would be a more efficient tool for macaroni consumption. Using a spoon, one could scoop up more macaroni with less effort, and finish eating more quickly.

knowing now that the spoon is not atheism, but before this is how I interpreted your meaning here:

As Atheists we are living our lives (eating macaroni) with a sort of scorch-earth policy (the spoon just tears thru the macaroni so we can eat it as fast as possible) and because we finish eating more quickly we die sooner without enjoying our mac and cheese (life)

 

loosingstreak06 wrote:
And yet I use a fork. Why? ...{because}... I like eating with the fork.

you establish that you are comfortable using a fork (your religion) to eat your mac n cheese (live your life)

So why should you change?

 

IF THIS IS A COMPLETELY INCORRECT ASSUMPTION PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR MEANING.

or am i really giving you too much credit?

 

what the hell are you saying?

 

tell me what each thing represents so I can slap it down properly!

 

Fork=?

Spoon=?

Macaroni=?

 


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline


Sodium Pentothal
Sodium Pentothal's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
Let me break it down for

Let me break it down for you:

 

loosingstreak is irrational.  He even ADMITS it.  End of thread.

 

He will only remain rational as long as fits into his desired reality.  Once it begins to challenge it, he will justify his thinking by saying that he "just wants to" (from a rational point of view, this is a tautology disguised as an argument).  If you further push him about it, he will ask you why rationality is so important.  This is tactic as I've already dealt with this guy.  It's a double-standard.

And to artificially sustain his false reality, he tries to revel in his irrationality by boasting about it and stumping people who haven't yet caught on to his game (his game stumps some people because they don't realize that it's a impossible to logically level with someone who already rejects logic).  The more stumped and reactive people get, the more his reality is affirmed.  Thus, it's a very ego-based reality, and ego-based realities are always hungry and needy.  Do not feed it!  You are wasting your time and will never be able to prove anything!

"If I don't think something can be explained conventionally, it must be magic. And magic comes from God!" -everyday religious person