A conversation between goldfish

[Michael]

Francis wrote

Limbaugh does this daily -tells his liberal adversaries what they "really" mean and what they "really" think. The drug addled and gluttonous radio windbag also presumes to lecture people on morality. There are quite a lot of nitwits who, at the same time being suckers for his advertised junk, think him possessed of great insight.

I am not one of them. The debate tactics he uses are lazy and childish.

So no, you do not get to tell other people either what they "really" mean or what they "really" should be saying.

And yet I can't help but notice you still have not addressed a single point or question I raised.

So the assertion stands.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

And yet I can't help but notice you still have not addressed a single point or question I raised.

So the assertion stands.

No. All you raised were foolish side distractions. Notwithstanding the issue that you cannot know if the goldfish perceived invisibility in water, glass or air, it was not an important issue in the exercise.

The point of the mental exercise was singular in nature. It was intended to point out that, in the universe of the goldfish, two of them, each perceiving the same things, came to different conclusions, and in this case, the goldfish who sensed something vast and beyond himself as behind the creation of his environment, he was entirely right and the atheist goldfish was wrong. It was an appeal to humility, which is in extremely short supply here.

One cannot expect the certain and arrogant religious to see that central point, however, and the silly distractions you raised were simply attempts to divert attention away from the precisely clear point that was being made.

[Michael]

Francis wrote

No. All you raised were foolish side distractions. Notwithstanding the issue that you cannot know if the goldfish perceived invisibility in water, glass or air, it was not an important issue in the exercise.

The point of the mental exercise was singular in nature. It was intended to point out that, in the universe of the goldfish, two of them, each perceiving the same things, came to different conclusions, and in this case, the goldfish who sensed something vast and beyond himself as behind the creation of his environment, he was entirely right and the atheist goldfish was wrong. It was an appeal to humility, which is in extremely short supply here.

And I pointed out how it was a false equivalency between the two, and how the logic he used was dangerous - and outlined the reason why. None of that is 'foolish side distractions'.

One cannot expect the certain and arrogant religious to see that central point, however, and the silly distractions you raised were simply attempts to divert attention away from the precisely clear point that was being made.

More blah blah from a man who has nothing to counter valid points raised at his insipid nonsense.

[Michael]

Alright, I'll ask again. You're not going to get out of your bullshit analogies by obfuscation and distraction.

If you're so correct as you say, it should be easy to answer these questions.


Do you stand behind the statement that glass, water and air bubbles are invisible? (Not "mostly see-through" or "sort of visible but mostly invisible" - invisible. Can't be seen)

Yes or no?





Do you stand by your assertion-by-analogy that a "dark, moving thing" physically visible by the fish every day, its movements directly corresponding to a physical change in their environment (by way of food) is equivalent to an unknown, unseeable, unidentifiable, unmeasurable supposed "entity" that as far as we can currently know, has never actually directly affected our environment?

Yes or no?


Do you agree with the idea that disregarding other possible solutions for the glass, the food etc, without proper investigation, in favour of the fish's preferred solution - even if correct on this occasion, that method of discovering truth is highly faulty and will lead to many beliefs that aren't true?

Yes or no?




But you're not correct, are you? So you're going to keep blustering and trying desperately to get the attention off the fact that your arguments are wrong.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

Alright, I'll ask again. You're not going to get out of your bullshit analogies by obfuscation and distraction.

If you're so correct as you say, it should be easy to answer these questions.


Do you stand behind the statement that glass, water and air bubbles are invisible? (Not "mostly see-through" or "sort of visible but mostly invisible" - invisible. Can't be seen)

Yes or no?

IT IS AN UNIMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS EXERCISE. Notwithstanding the point that a fish has entirely different visual senses than humans do, whether the things are invisible or clear see-through to either humans or fish MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

Michael wrote

Do you stand by your assertion-by-analogy that a "dark, moving thing" physically visible by the fish every day, its movements directly corresponding to a physical change in their environment (by way of food) is equivalent to an unknown, unseeable, unidentifiable, unmeasurable supposed "entity" that as far as we can currently know, has never actually directly affected our environment?

Yes or no?

No. It is merely a condition within the perception of the fish, which, added to all the others, causes him to believe that his environment had been created.

Michael wrote

Do you agree with the idea that disregarding other possible solutions for the glass, the food etc, without proper investigation, in favour of the fish's preferred solution - even if correct on this occasion, that method of discovering truth is highly faulty and will lead to many beliefs that aren't true?

Yes or no?

No. The exercise is limited in scope and duration. It is not intended to be a commentary on goldfish evidence gathering. It is silly to impose the scientific method on goldfish in a tank.

Michael wrote

But you're not correct, are you? So you're going to keep blustering and trying desperately to get the attention off the fact that your arguments are wrong.

My exercise was entirely correct. The atheist goldfish was WRONG, and the goldfish who sensed something greater than himself, was RIGHT. This may come as a shock to you, but fish tanks do not ever accidentally pop into existence with glass, lighting, temperature control, regular feeding and predator exclusion.

[Michael]

Francis wrote

IT IS AN UNIMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS EXERCISE. Notwithstanding the point that a fish has entirely different visual senses than humans do, whether the things are invisible or clear see-through to either humans or fish MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.

No, it is not unimportant - it is very important. You used the fact that glass, water, and air bubbles being invisible as key evidence for your fish.

So it stands to reason then, that if these are not statements that you stand behind as being true that you based your Strawfish B argument on false pretenses.
The base of your entire argument is predicated on things you won't even stand behind, yet you want to try to claim it is correct.

No. It is merely a condition within the perception of the fish, which, added to all the others, causes him to believe that his environment had been created.

So you acknowledge then that the fish's situation to humans - entirely measurable, every day interaction - is in no way equivalent to the situation you are putting forward between humans and the being you are declaring as god - unseeable, undetectable, no current interaction that we know of.

You are basically admitting that the story of the fish has nothing to do with your proposed human-god relationship.

No. The exercise is limited in scope and duration.

And logic.

It is not intended to be a commentary on goldfish evidence gathering.

No, it is supposed to be a commentary on human evidence gathering, using an entirely not equivalent (which you yourself even admit) relationship between goldfish and humans.

And since you are trying to say that what the goldfish do is what humans should do, then it is entirely fair to overlay proper logic and scientific method onto you human-analogue goldfish.

It is silly to impose the scientific method on goldfish in a tank.

And even sillier to apply goldfish logic to humans.

My exercise was entirely correct. The atheist goldfish was WRONG, and the goldfish who sensed something greater than himself, was RIGHT.

But by your own admission, the goldfish-human relationship has jothing to do with your proposed human-god relationship, so it really means nothing to any human if the goldfish was right or not.
The only way it would matter is if the two situations were equivalent, which you yourself just admitted they are not.

This may come as a shock to you, but fish tanks do not ever accidentally pop into existence with glass, lighting, temperature control, regular feeding and predator exclusion.

"Fish tanks have to be made by humans, therefore god exists".

Airtight logic, there. /s.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

No, it is not unimportant - it is very important. You used the fact that glass, water, and air bubbles being invisible as key evidence for your fish.

So it stands to reason then, that if these are not statements that you stand behind as being true that you based your Strawfish B argument on false pretenses.
The base of your entire argument is predicated on things you won't even stand behind, yet you want to try to claim it is correct.




So you acknowledge then that the fish's situation to humans - entirely measurable, every day interaction - is in no way equivalent to the situation you are putting forward between humans and the being you are declaring as god - unseeable, undetectable, no current interaction that we know of.

You are basically admitting that the story of the fish has nothing to do with your proposed human-god relationship.



And logic.



No, it is supposed to be a commentary on human evidence gathering, using an entirely not equivalent (which you yourself even admit) relationship between goldfish and humans.

And since you are trying to say that what the goldfish do is what humans should do, then it is entirely fair to overlay proper logic and scientific method onto you human-analogue goldfish.



And even sillier to apply goldfish logic to humans.






But by your own admission, the goldfish-human relationship has jothing to do with your proposed human-god relationship, so it really means nothing to any human if the goldfish was right or not.
The only way it would matter is if the two situations were equivalent, which you yourself just admitted they are not.



"Fish tanks have to be made by humans, therefore god exists".

Airtight logic, there. /s.

Here we are in a vast, vast universe, knowing an incredibly tiny percentage of the total knowledge that exists, and you do not have the tiniest bit of humility before that.

This may come as a shock to you, but humility is not a weakness, quite the opposite. The people with humility accomplish things in life. The people without it accomplish little.

And there is dishonesty in you as well, for which you should, but never will apologize. You write in quotes as if I stated it

"Fish tanks have to be made by humans, therefore god exists".

Of course if someone had declined to be rude and asked, I would have said

"If goldfish B is correct, therefore people who sense a Creator could be correct". But you did not ask. You misstated the point and cackled in imagined superiority.

[Michael]

Francis wrote

Here we are in a vast, vast universe, knowing an incredibly tiny percentage of the total knowledge that exists, and you do not have the tiniest bit of humility before that.

This may come as a shock to you, but humility is not a weakness, quite the opposite. The people with humility accomplish things in life. The people without it accomplish little.

This whole bit is just you wanking on, honestly, so I am uninterested in bothering with it. I will deal with the meat and bones at the end of your post, however.

And there is dishonesty in you as well, for which you should, but never will apologize. You write in quotes as if I stated it

"Fish tanks have to be made by humans, therefore god exists".

Of course if someone had declined to be rude and asked, I would have said

"If goldfish B is correct, therefore people who sense a Creator could be correct". But you did not ask.

See how now - after being called out - it suddenly becomes "oh, I meant people who sense a creator COULD be correct."

Unless you suddenly want to deny it (which, frankly, wouldn't surprise me), in your analogy, the goldfish are meant to be human analogues - one representing what you think is the theist side, and one representing what you think is the atheist side. I mean, hell, at one point you even come right out and say as much - here, I'll directly quote it.

Francis wrote

The A goldfish is obviously meant to represent views atheists commonly express.

Goldfish B is essentially meant to represent Human Theists who is meant to be
"sens[ing] or perceiv[ing] that something special was afoot, and attribut[ing] vast intelligence and powers to something outside of his ... environment."

(Taken from your first post)

Let's also look at what ELSE you wrote on your first post

"in each instance, B was right."

Notice how there's no attitude of "hey what I mean is that this theist attitude COULD be correct".

No.

You specifically wrote that in each instance, your Human Theist Analogue Goldfish B WAS CORRECT, with no wiggle room.

Saying theist goldfish is correct means that because this is an analogy about human theists, you are saying that human theists are correct. Saying human theists are correct means saying god exists.

And why did you say the theist goldfish was correct? Because tanks have to be made by humans.


Tanks have to be made by humans -> theist goldfish is correct -> human theist is correct -> god exists.

Or, to bring it down to its basic beginning and ending premises....

"Fishtanks have to be made by humans, therefore god exists"

I did not lie or misrepresent you. If you want to say i did, then you will have to directly contradict the firm statements that you have made.

I simply applied logic to your ridiculous statements.

You misstated the point and cackled in imagined superiority.

If you were to - even for an instance - actually be honest about anything, then you would find that I am likely one of the most evenhanded people on this forum when dealing with people who I believe appear to be genuinely making an effort towards honest discourse.
It's when I don't think you are attempting to be honest, or you come in being a disrespectful jackass to people - both things I believe you are doing - then I am less likely to be evenly measured in my response. You want a respectful attitude from me? Give me a respectful attitude. It's simple.

[Kinich Ahau]

I've tried to keep goldfish a couple of times over the years. Despite my best efforts I would always find them floating belly up after a couple of months.

As the supreme entity on the other side of the glass I was hoping that I could give them eternal life as a reward for recognising my shadowy movements as that of a divine being.

It was not to be, they all ended up flushed down the dunny in the same way that Francis's analogies should be.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

IT IS AN UNIMPORTANT ISSUE IN THIS EXERCISE. Notwithstanding the point that a fish has entirely different visual senses than humans do, whether the things are invisible or clear see-through to either humans or fish MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE.


My exercise was entirely correct. The atheist goldfish was WRONG, and the goldfish who sensed something greater than himself, was RIGHT. This may come as a shock to you, but fish tanks do not ever accidentally pop into existence with glass, lighting, temperature control, regular feeding and predator exclusion.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

Here we are in a vast, vast universe, knowing an incredibly tiny percentage of the total knowledge that exists, and you do not have the tiniest bit of humility before that.

This may come as a shock to you, but humility is not a weakness, quite the opposite. The people with humility accomplish things in life. The people without it accomplish little.

And there is dishonesty in you as well, for which you should, but never will apologize. You write in quotes as if I stated it

"Fish tanks have to be made by humans, therefore god exists".

Of course if someone had declined to be rude and asked, I would have said

"If goldfish B is correct, therefore people who sense a Creator could be correct". But you did not ask. You misstated the point and cackled in imagined superiority.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

No. The exercise is limited in scope and duration. It is not intended to be a commentary on goldfish evidence gathering. It is silly to impose the scientific method on goldfish in a tank.
.....

My exercise was entirely correct. The atheist goldfish was WRONG, and the goldfish who sensed something greater than himself, was RIGHT..

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

Not a single comment actually dealing with the analogy raised. The boring and expected RELIGIOUS claims of dishonesty, posting idiotic pictures, and of course prepubescent imagery posing as something else.

This will come as a shock, but snot and diarrhea do not address the issues of existence

[Smellyoldgit]

Eight(ish) years ago, in this post, Choobus initiated the fine thread of rants.
I can see why Tenspace felt the need to let off steam due to The Frantard's incessant wankosity:

Christ, Francis. You aren't worth the time. If I took a sampling of all the people I converse with, you would stand out as the anomaly, the noise in the data set that gets tossed out.

You don't FUCKING KNOW about the shit I've dealt with. Have some FUCKING HUMILITY? FUCK YOU ASSHOLE! I'm sitting here right now wondering how I'm gonna pay my FUCKING bills and put food in my kid's FUCKING MOUTH next week after having spent all my FUCKING MONEY on my FUCKING WIFE and her FUCKING PRESCRIPTIONS and her FUCKING DOCTOR'S VISITS.

YOU ARE A FUCKING SHITSTAIN ON HUMANITY. YOU ARE WORTH LESS THAN THE ELEMENTS THAT COMPRISE YOUR PHYSICAL EXISTENCE. All you do here is tell us how shitty we are for educating ourselves, and how much better you are from your throne.

Well, I for one am really fucking sick of it. HUMILITY? FUCK YOU AGAIN, FRANCIS. I COULD HAVE DIVORCED THE CRIPPLE - that would make you happy, I"m sure. But no, I'M FUCKING SPENDING THE REST OF MY LIFE WITH AN ILL PERSON. I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO TAKE A VACATION AGAIN, I WILL NEVER EXPECT TO HAVE A PARTNER IN THE MANY THINGS IN LIFE BECAUSE SHE'S USUALLY TOO FUCKING SICK TO EXIT THE HOUSE. AND OF COURSE, I HAVEN'T BEEN INTIMATE WITH HER IN ALMOST TEN YEARS... I'M MORE CELIBATE THAN MOST PRIESTS.

SO, FRANCIS, FUCK YOU AND YOUR FEIGNED SUPERIORITY, FUCK YOU AND YOUR HIGHER HORSE, AND FUCK YOU AND YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT OTHERS.

Oh... one other thing, Francis:

FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU

!!!

Get the fuck out of here before I find some amoral murderous atheist (shouldn't be too hard to do, considering we're all below your beatific perfection) to come to your little hick midwestern town and write you a really strong letter to the editor.

I've had my patience with you wear thinner than Paris Hilton's bedsheets.

Get. The. Fuck. Out of here. Don't come back. You are not welcome here. You're a pompous, self-centered asshole who's daddy would've done better to beat off on the sidewalk and let the sun hatch it.

[Sinfidel]

WOW! Must have taken SOME provocation to produce that rant!