The parable of the three Bicycles

[Fartsniffage]

I have to be honest, I'm losing track of whether I should start following the bible or enter the Tour de France.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

But let's change this parable to something more applicable, and more true to form. Let's say you find a box, and on that box says "parts to construct one Blarg". You have no idea what a blarg is. You have never seen one, you don't know what it is, what it does, how it functions, or what it's supposed to accomplish. There is no picture of a blarg on the box. You have absolutely no idea what this thing inside the box is supposed to be. In fact, the original people who wrote the manual are dead, the language it's written in are dead, the original translators are dead, and the box with the parts contains several DIFFERENT manuals, each with some key differences.

In the box are a bunch of parts, and instructions on how to assemble the blarg. You follow the instructions.

have you built a blarg?

Does the person who put the stuff in the box, who wrote the manual (or at least dictated the manual), who ACTUALLY knows what a blarg is, think you built a blarg? That is the question.

You have no idea. You've never met him. you've never met the person who (supposedly) took dictation to write the manual from the engineer. You've never met the person who translated the supposed dictation into English. you've never seen the original copy of the manual.

You don't even know if there was an engineer in the first place.

Now, if you built this Blag and it turns out not to be what the person who put the stuff in the box intended, there are several reasons.

1. A blarg never existed and someone was messing with you.
2. The box of parts was incomplete
3. The manual was incorrect or vague or misleading
4. You didnt read the manual.
5. You didnt have the right tools

I have no answer for 1. other than DOH! You got me.
2. is sort of deep

3-5 is where this message is coming from.

and 1 and 3 seem to be the crux of my point. Either there was never any such thing as a "blarg", or there might be, but this particular manual is simply totally wrong. Not just "slightly" wrong, not something that gets you "close" to this theoretical blarg. But entirely, utterly, completely wrong.

Is it? can you show it's not?

In fact, let's make it even MORE fun. Next to this first box for a blarg is another box ALSO containing instructions and parts. In it are about half the parts of the first box, and the manual is only half as long. Is THIS the correct one? Is it missing parts, or does the other one have extranious parts?

And next to THAT box is a 3rd box. That box contains all the parts of the second box, and new parts that are totally different than the first one. The first half of the manual is the same as the first half of the first box (and the entire second box's manual) but the second half of it is different.

Then there's a 4th box with COMPLETELY different parts, and a manual with TOTALLY different instructions, which looks NOTHING like the other 3, except maybe for small parts like screws which are fairly universal.

And, by the way, there's a 5th box. That box is empty. The manual is simply one page. It reads "there is no such thing as a blarg".

Which is the right box? Which is the right blarg? Is there any such thing?

Sorry, this got lost in the sea of blather.

Which brings me to my next point..... Dont smoke crack. Sorry, I had to do it.

No, that is a very important point. Which is the point that many people struggle with. So many boxes, so many manuals, different parts, etc. I feel for those people. I was one of them.

This is exactly the story of Joseph Smith. He was faced with ALMOST the exact dilema you described (ok, not Blargs). He, at least, believed in God. He had observed the many Churches that were springing up in his little town and how vastly different thier doctrines were. There is more, I am sure you can find it if you looked. I am not sure this is the appropriate time or place for me to keep going.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I have to be honest, I'm losing track of whether I should start following the bible or enter the Tour de France.

heh, Bible? I didnt say a word about the Bible. Maybe I did, I am conversing in 2 different threads.

[Neo Art]

In fact, let's make it even MORE fun. Next to this first box for a blarg is another box ALSO containing instructions and parts. In it are about half the parts of the first box, and the manual is only half as long. Is THIS the correct one? Is it missing parts, or does the other one have extranious parts?

And next to THAT box is a 3rd box. That box contains all the parts of the second box, and new parts that are totally different than the first one. The first half of the manual is the same as the first half of the first box (and the entire second box's manual) but the second half of it is different.

Then there's a 4th box with COMPLETELY different parts, and a manual with TOTALLY different instructions, which looks NOTHING like the other 3, except maybe for small parts like screws which are fairly universal.

And, by the way, there's a 5th box. That box is empty. The manual is simply one page. It reads "there is no such thing as a blarg".

Which is the right box? Which is the right blarg? Is there any such thing?

Sorry, this got lost in the sea of blather.

Which brings me to my next point..... Dont smoke crack. Sorry, I had to do it.

No, that is a very important point. Which is the point that many people struggle with. So many boxes, so many manuals, different parts, etc. I feel for those people. I was one of them.

This is exactly the story of Joseph Smith. He was faced with ALMOST the exact dilema you described (ok, not Blargs). He, at least, believed in God. He had observed the many Churches that were springing up in his little town and how vastly different thier doctrines were. There is more, I am sure you can find it if you looked. I am not sure this is the appropriate time or place for me to keep going.

You know what I'm NOT seeing here? An answer to my question.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I stand corrected. I had am not fluent in idiotic English.

Apparently you're not fluent in regular English either.

English yes. Typing, no.

[Neo Art]

heh, Bible? I didnt say a word about the Bible.

Bullshit.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

In fact, let's make it even MORE fun. Next to this first box for a blarg is another box ALSO containing instructions and parts. In it are about half the parts of the first box, and the manual is only half as long. Is THIS the correct one? Is it missing parts, or does the other one have extranious parts?

And next to THAT box is a 3rd box. That box contains all the parts of the second box, and new parts that are totally different than the first one. The first half of the manual is the same as the first half of the first box (and the entire second box's manual) but the second half of it is different.

Then there's a 4th box with COMPLETELY different parts, and a manual with TOTALLY different instructions, which looks NOTHING like the other 3, except maybe for small parts like screws which are fairly universal.

And, by the way, there's a 5th box. That box is empty. The manual is simply one page. It reads "there is no such thing as a blarg".

Which is the right box? Which is the right blarg? Is there any such thing?

Sorry, this got lost in the sea of blather.

Which brings me to my next point..... Dont smoke crack. Sorry, I had to do it.

No, that is a very important point. Which is the point that many people struggle with. So many boxes, so many manuals, different parts, etc. I feel for those people. I was one of them.

This is exactly the story of Joseph Smith. He was faced with ALMOST the exact dilema you described (ok, not Blargs). He, at least, believed in God. He had observed the many Churches that were springing up in his little town and how vastly different thier doctrines were. There is more, I am sure you can find it if you looked. I am not sure this is the appropriate time or place for me to keep going.

You know what I'm NOT seeing here? An answer to my question.

I deliberatly didnt answer your question. I cant answer it. Well, I can, but like I said, that is for somewhere else. All I want to say is that I understand your question. Most people have the same question. Most people find thier answers in different ways. ALMOST none of them are answered by man. Sorry, I wont help you with that one here.

[RAHIT RA]

I deliberatly didnt answer your question. I cant answer it.

lame. Religion sure blows

[Neo Art]

I deliberatly didnt answer your question. I cant answer it.

I know you can't. And since those questions are fundamentally important to your entire little analogy here, your inability to answer them breaks the entire fucking thing.

But thanks for being man enough to at least admit that, 12 pages later.

[Flameswroth]

But let's change this parable to something more applicable, and more true to form. Let's say you find a box, and on that box says "parts to construct one Blarg". You have no idea what a blarg is. You have never seen one, you don't know what it is, what it does, how it functions, or what it's supposed to accomplish. There is no picture of a blarg on the box. You have absolutely no idea what this thing inside the box is supposed to be. In fact, the original people who wrote the manual are dead, the language it's written in are dead, the original translators are dead, and the box with the parts contains several DIFFERENT manuals, each with some key differences.

In the box are a bunch of parts, and instructions on how to assemble the blarg. You follow the instructions.

have you built a blarg?

Does the person who put the stuff in the box, who wrote the manual (or at least dictated the manual), who ACTUALLY knows what a blarg is, think you built a blarg? That is the question.

You have no idea. You've never met him. you've never met the person who (supposedly) took dictation to write the manual from the engineer. You've never met the person who translated the supposed dictation into English. you've never seen the original copy of the manual.

You don't even know if there was an engineer in the first place.

Now, if you built this Blag and it turns out not to be what the person who put the stuff in the box intended, there are several reasons.

1. A blarg never existed and someone was messing with you.
2. The box of parts was incomplete
3. The manual was incorrect or vague or misleading
4. You didnt read the manual.
5. You didnt have the right tools

I have no answer for 1. other than DOH! You got me.
2. is sort of deep

3-5 is where this message is coming from.

and 1 and 3 seem to be the crux of my point. Either there was never any such thing as a "blarg", or there might be, but this particular manual is simply totally wrong. Not just "slightly" wrong, not something that gets you "close" to this theoretical blarg. But entirely, utterly, completely wrong.

Is it? can you show it's not?

In fact, let's make it even MORE fun. Next to this first box for a blarg is another box ALSO containing instructions and parts. In it are about half the parts of the first box, and the manual is only half as long. Is THIS the correct one? Is it missing parts, or does the other one have extranious parts?

And next to THAT box is a 3rd box. That box contains all the parts of the second box, and new parts that are totally different than the first one. The first half of the manual is the same as the first half of the first box (and the entire second box's manual) but the second half of it is different.

Then there's a 4th box with COMPLETELY different parts, and a manual with TOTALLY different instructions, which looks NOTHING like the other 3, except maybe for small parts like screws which are fairly universal.

And, by the way, there's a 5th box. That box is empty. The manual is simply one page. It reads "there is no such thing as a blarg".

Which is the right box? Which is the right blarg? Is there any such thing?

Can't you see? It's the screws! The screws are the universal truth! They stand unchanged in purpose, material and design, resilient regardless of what we choose to do with them.

The screws are truth! The screws are truth!

[Muravyets]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

Seriously, that is such a load of nonsense. Show me this One Universal Optimal Bike. Show me which of the many different models are closest to it.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

heh, Bible? I didnt say a word about the Bible.

Bullshit.

Shh.... I am having fun. Surely you wont deny me that, right? I may just make this idea into a book.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

I deliberatly didnt answer your question. I cant answer it.

I know you can't. And since those questions are fundamentally important to your entire little analogy here, your inability to answer them breaks the entire fucking thing.

But thanks for being man enough to at least admit that, 12 pages later.

Where did I say I was trying to. This is my story. I tell it however I want. If you dont like my story, fine, critique it when it hits the bookshelves.

[Poliwanacraca]

But let's change this parable to something more applicable, and more true to form. Let's say you find a box, and on that box says "parts to construct one Blarg". You have no idea what a blarg is. You have never seen one, you don't know what it is, what it does, how it functions, or what it's supposed to accomplish. There is no picture of a blarg on the box. You have absolutely no idea what this thing inside the box is supposed to be. In fact, the original people who wrote the manual are dead, the language it's written in are dead, the original translators are dead, and the box with the parts contains several DIFFERENT manuals, each with some key differences.

In the box are a bunch of parts, and instructions on how to assemble the blarg. You follow the instructions.

have you built a blarg?

Does the person who put the stuff in the box, who wrote the manual (or at least dictated the manual), who ACTUALLY knows what a blarg is, think you built a blarg? That is the question.

You have no idea. You've never met him. you've never met the person who (supposedly) took dictation to write the manual from the engineer. You've never met the person who translated the supposed dictation into English. you've never seen the original copy of the manual.

You don't even know if there was an engineer in the first place.

Now, if you built this Blag and it turns out not to be what the person who put the stuff in the box intended, there are several reasons.

1. A blarg never existed and someone was messing with you.
2. The box of parts was incomplete
3. The manual was incorrect or vague or misleading
4. You didnt read the manual.
5. You didnt have the right tools

I have no answer for 1. other than DOH! You got me.
2. is sort of deep

3-5 is where this message is coming from.

and 1 and 3 seem to be the crux of my point. Either there was never any such thing as a "blarg", or there might be, but this particular manual is simply totally wrong. Not just "slightly" wrong, not something that gets you "close" to this theoretical blarg. But entirely, utterly, completely wrong.

Is it? can you show it's not?

In fact, let's make it even MORE fun. Next to this first box for a blarg is another box ALSO containing instructions and parts. In it are about half the parts of the first box, and the manual is only half as long. Is THIS the correct one? Is it missing parts, or does the other one have extranious parts?

And next to THAT box is a 3rd box. That box contains all the parts of the second box, and new parts that are totally different than the first one. The first half of the manual is the same as the first half of the first box (and the entire second box's manual) but the second half of it is different.

Then there's a 4th box with COMPLETELY different parts, and a manual with TOTALLY different instructions, which looks NOTHING like the other 3, except maybe for small parts like screws which are fairly universal.

And, by the way, there's a 5th box. That box is empty. The manual is simply one page. It reads "there is no such thing as a blarg".

Which is the right box? Which is the right blarg? Is there any such thing?

Can't you see? It's the screws! The screws are the universal truth! They stand unchanged in purpose, material and design, resilient regardless of what we choose to do with them.

The screws are truth! The screws are truth!

Screwing does seem to be an important and nearly universal part of life. *nod*

[Muravyets]

Given time and patience and a supply of crash test dummies, you can build a bicycle and rebuild it over and over until you discover the optimal configuration of the parts, with no need for a manual of dubious origin. You can then become rich selling your own manual, and retire in luxury.

Clearly this is what is good in life.

Of course. But since it takes a lifetime (ok we are deviating a bit) to build the optimal bike, think you might want a little hint to begin with?

Not from people whose arguments make it clear they don't know a jot more about anything than I do.

[Fartsniffage]

Where did I say I was trying to. This is my story. I tell it however I want. If you dont like my story, fine, critique it when it hits the bookshelves.

Hahaha.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves the new L. Ron Hubbard.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

They were dictated to by the Engineer who designed and built the bikes.

What about me being the Engineer? I can design and build a functional bike. I also understand the physical principles of bikes.

If you were the Engineer, you would BE the Engineer. There is only ONE Engineer and ONLY One universal optimal Bike, Male version and female version, of course, for certain comfort and safety reasons. There are different models of course, and they are all fine models, each though, is patterned after the One Universal Optimal Bike.

Seriously, that is such a load of nonsense. Show me this One Universal Optimal Bike. Show me which of the many different models are closest to it.

I am not an artist. I cant draw what the bike looks like. I am not sitting next to you where you are at right now either, SO, you will just have to use your imagination.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

Where did I say I was trying to. This is my story. I tell it however I want. If you dont like my story, fine, critique it when it hits the bookshelves.

Hahaha.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves the new L. Ron Hubbard.

Heh, good one. Never read him. I wonder if I'll ever meet Tom Cruise.

[Muravyets]

I said there were different models. Just in my ALLEGORY (geez, happy?), they are all made by the same Engineer. But, each model has an optimum set of specs and operating conditions.

Your allegory is made of fail, sorry.

Umm, sorry. What language is that. I dont understand the words you type in the order you type them. It must be me though.

It's idomatic English.

I stand corrected. I had am not fluent in idiotic English.

If you hold true to pattern, this flame spark means you will abandon your thread in 1 to 1.5 days.

[Neo Art]

I deliberatly didnt answer your question. I cant answer it.

I know you can't. And since those questions are fundamentally important to your entire little analogy here, your inability to answer them breaks the entire fucking thing.

But thanks for being man enough to at least admit that, 12 pages later.

Where did I say I was trying to. This is my story. I tell it however I want. If you dont like my story, fine, critique it when it hits the bookshelves.

I'm sorry, I thought this was a debate forum, not your personal blog.

[Muravyets]

I am not an artist. I cant draw what the bike looks like. I am not sitting next to you where you are at right now either, SO, you will just have to use your imagination.

So what you are saying then is that no such thing exists. Thank you for admitting that.

[Treznor]

"It does mean that no one can definitively say that their version of the crash is the correct one."
Very true, but they are all describing the same crash.

I'm suddenly reminded of the little boy who cried "wolf." Sometimes, people allow their fear of wolves to buy into the little boy's lie and support it. "I heard it howl!" "I saw wolf prints near the village!"

Sometimes the crash is merely a product of our own fears.

'It means that trying to lay blame (or assess rewards) for actions taking during the crash are equally invalid, which is what this "bicycle-building" exercise is ultimately about."
I am not sure I follow this line.

Your "parable" about bicycles is a poorly constructed allegory for the Bible and religious thought. Nobody in this thread is pretending otherwise, except you. The point of religion is to worship the right god in the right way so you maximize your rewards and minimize punishment. Well, the ultimate point is behavioral control and social manipulation, but you get my point. The ultimate goal of the parable is to build the "bicycle" the way the "Engineer" wants it to be built. That's the reward. You leave out the punishment, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean there's a bicycle in the first place, or an Engineer trying to teach us how to build it. There are records of early attempts to build flying machines that lots of people believed in: I remember one video in particular about a woman trying to teach her students how to fly with wings. That it never worked never stopped people from believing it could be done.

"Then it's a shame he failed massively. If the Engineer actually showed up to clarify things, all that was accomplished was even more confusion"
Not really a failure. (OK Stretching a bit). The engineer told the ancient Tech Writers that he would eventually show them what a correct bike looks like. Everyone searched and waited for the Engineer, all the while they were bragging that they had the best method for making the bikes. Bike making guilds popped up all over the cities, all making what they thought was the optimal bike.

Not a failure? If the Engineer came to us and corrected us on how the bike is supposed to be built, surely the best bike design should have risen to the top, right?

When the Engineer finally showed up and showed them the correct Bike, it was different enough from thier own bikes that they became offended. They KNEW they had the best Bikes because they were masters at building bikes according to manuals that were handed down from generation to generation. They became so offended that they rejected the Optimal Bike and destroyed it. Not before some humble bike builders decided to actually study the bike and test drive the bike (stretching here , I know) and they relized that, yes, this was the Optimal Bike. They began to study the Bike and make thier own manuals. True, each new bike builder saw the bike a bit differently, but they all got the important details correct. One, though, when questioned, denied he ever saw the bike, but that is a different story.

Those new builders went throughout the town and started teaching people that thier way of building bikes was not the most optimal way. Of course the proud "master" builders got angry and rebuked them. Eventually, they were all killed and the town lost the ability and knowledge to make the optimal bike again.

Oh, I see. But aren't you a believer in free market principles? Shouldn't natural market corrections make the jealous bike manual writers fall away as their products are demonstrably inferior to the design offered by the Engineer? I mean, it's a bicycle. It's not rocket science. Once you get the fundamental design, cosmetic changes shouldn't make a difference. Anyone who hasn't got the fundamental design principles down as explained by the Engineer should be quickly discredited since their designs simply won't work at a fundamental level. The market should embrace the superior design and everybody should be pedaling happily in their bicycle-rich lives.

Except, that hasn't happened, has it? The market hasn't recognized a superior design, nor has it been able to reverse-engineer the Optimal Bike from descriptions. So the Engineer's attempt to correct the confusion has failed.

[KiloMikeAlpha]

"It does mean that no one can definitively say that their version of the crash is the correct one."
Very true, but they are all describing the same crash.

I'm suddenly reminded of the little boy who cried "wolf." Sometimes, people allow their fear of wolves to buy into the little boy's lie and support it. "I heard it howl!" "I saw wolf prints near the village!"

Sometimes the crash is merely a product of our own fears.

'It means that trying to lay blame (or assess rewards) for actions taking during the crash are equally invalid, which is what this "bicycle-building" exercise is ultimately about."
I am not sure I follow this line.

Your "parable" about bicycles is a poorly constructed allegory for the Bible and religious thought. Nobody in this thread is pretending otherwise, except you. The point of religion is to worship the right god in the right way so you maximize your rewards and minimize punishment. Well, the ultimate point is behavioral control and social manipulation, but you get my point. The ultimate goal of the parable is to build the "bicycle" the way the "Engineer" wants it to be built. That's the reward. You leave out the punishment, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean there's a bicycle in the first place, or an Engineer trying to teach us how to build it. There are records of early attempts to build flying machines that lots of people believed in: I remember one video in particular about a woman trying to teach her students how to fly with wings. That it never worked never stopped people from believing it could be done.

"Then it's a shame he failed massively. If the Engineer actually showed up to clarify things, all that was accomplished was even more confusion"
Not really a failure. (OK Stretching a bit). The engineer told the ancient Tech Writers that he would eventually show them what a correct bike looks like. Everyone searched and waited for the Engineer, all the while they were bragging that they had the best method for making the bikes. Bike making guilds popped up all over the cities, all making what they thought was the optimal bike.

Not a failure? If the Engineer came to us and corrected us on how the bike is supposed to be built, surely the best bike design should have risen to the top, right?

When the Engineer finally showed up and showed them the correct Bike, it was different enough from thier own bikes that they became offended. They KNEW they had the best Bikes because they were masters at building bikes according to manuals that were handed down from generation to generation. They became so offended that they rejected the Optimal Bike and destroyed it. Not before some humble bike builders decided to actually study the bike and test drive the bike (stretching here , I know) and they relized that, yes, this was the Optimal Bike. They began to study the Bike and make thier own manuals. True, each new bike builder saw the bike a bit differently, but they all got the important details correct. One, though, when questioned, denied he ever saw the bike, but that is a different story.

Those new builders went throughout the town and started teaching people that thier way of building bikes was not the most optimal way. Of course the proud "master" builders got angry and rebuked them. Eventually, they were all killed and the town lost the ability and knowledge to make the optimal bike again.

Oh, I see. But aren't you a believer in free market principles? Shouldn't natural market corrections make the jealous bike manual writers fall away as their products are demonstrably inferior to the design offered by the Engineer? I mean, it's a bicycle. It's not rocket science. Once you get the fundamental design, cosmetic changes shouldn't make a difference. Anyone who hasn't got the fundamental design principles down as explained by the Engineer should be quickly discredited since their designs simply won't work at a fundamental level. The market should embrace the superior design and everybody should be pedaling happily in their bicycle-rich lives.

Except, that hasn't happened, has it? The market hasn't recognized a superior design, nor has it been able to reverse-engineer the Optimal Bike from descriptions. So the Engineer's attempt to correct the confusion has failed.

You sure know how to ruin a story. Thanks.

[Flameswroth]

You sure know how to ruin a story. Thanks.

Hehe, yeah. I don't really fall in line with most of the people here who disagree with the religious premise of your story, but I definitely think your story has been torn apart pretty bad. Still, you got 12 pages of responses out of it, without explicitly making a title that said "OMG religions r gud", which to me is a plus in this forum

It's also intriguing to me that the bulk of the conversation after the original post, for good or for ill, could be summarized with the phrase 'cool story, bro'

[KiloMikeAlpha]

You sure know how to ruin a story. Thanks.

Hehe, yeah. I don't really fall in line with most of the people here who disagree with the religious premise of your story, but I definitely think your story has been torn apart pretty bad. Still, you got 12 pages of responses out of it, without explicitly making a title that said "OMG religions r gud", which to me is a plus in this forum

It's also intriguing to me that the bulk of the conversation after the original post, for good or for ill, could be summarized with the phrase 'cool story, bro'

Thanks. One guy even commended me for my subtlety (sp). Although, I am not sure if it was sincere or sarcasm.

I know. I was bored. I thought I would have a bit more intelligent thread than "How do you like to have sex". I had fun with it. It made me think about a few things. Hope it did for others.