Talk:Last Thursdayism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Further implications[edit]

Either I'm not seeing something that the author of the section sees or that section makes no sense.

First off not to burst anyone's bubble but inductive reasoning is unreliable; it can be wrong and often it is wrong. We even have name for that problem, it's called unsurprisingly "Problem of Induction".

Secondly; in the last paragraph the author claims "then it is possible for us to be only halfway along our chain of memories" and then continues to write under the assumption that we are to prove that "Last Thursdayism" must be false.

Thirdly the author claims that "If we are halfway along our chain of memories, then we can prove that the future will be like the past" but provides no answer as to how would we do that. If we have access to the memories of the "future" doesn't that just mean we have moved further along the chain of memories?

And finaly being right in one case does not mean that a certain way of reasoning is right in all cases or that it is reliable.-- (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, that section is just some BON being a complete and utter tool. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Thursdayism Argues Against Last Thursdayism[edit]

If the universe was created last Thursday, why would Last Thursdayism be a concept? If one were to falsify all signs of the universe's age in order to fool humanity, why create Last Thursdayism? While this question is pretty silly, when applied, like Last Thursdayism, to the fundie argument of God creating all the evidence of the universe's formation, specifically applying this question to the Garden of Eden (Last Thursdayism was given to the first human beings, us, in a Last Thursdayist universe, while in the Bible, God was specifically talking to the first human beings he made, who either he knew would betray him, which makes talking to them pointless, or who he assumed he could trust, which makes all the fake age pointless, which, by talking to not only them, but many, many other people, not to mention he wrote a book, makes the lies pointless, because he specifically told the truth to people). So, in a Last Thursdayist universe, Last Thursdayism should not exist. In a Christian universe where The Bible is literal but at the same time, God falsified the universe, The Bible and God's constant communication to humanity should not exist. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 01:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Because a universe with no Last Thursdayism would look really suspicious. -- (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole concept of Last Thursdayism is nonsensical and self-contradictory.[edit]

Since Thursday is a real term, a day we can define it right? OK, well, today is Wednesday so the Earth was created on last Thursday right? OK, now I believe that and tomorrow, at 00:00:01, will I start believing that what I believed 1 second ago was created one second ago and all before also one second ago knowing that I believed in Last Thursdayism last Thursday as well?

Lol. — Unsigned, by: Kerstinz / talk / contribs

I don't think you understand the concept. At all. The premise is that if God could have poofed the world into existance 6000 years ago, he also has the exact same power to have poofed us into existance a few days ago, including fake memories of time before that. It's a reductio ad absurdum of any claims that the evidence is faked in order to "test" us. CorruptUser (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to be confused with...[edit]

The Last Tuesday Society (who are not relevant to RW) at [1]. (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

TIL: Last Thursdayism[edit]

Stands at over +3800. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 11:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The political implications of Last Thursdayism[edit]

I made this edit in good faith which was reverted by User:GrammarCommie without explanation, but which I hope we can have a discussion about here. I've just now reinstated that edit, and GrammarCommie subsequently reverted my edit.

Categorically speaking, any worldview which asserts that the wold came into being last Thursday must by necessity deny that the holocaust ever happened. While I don't think this is an exhaustive list of what the followers of last Thursdayism would deny, it's worth calling out as a controversial political assertion, no matter how unintended.

--RWikiCat (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

You do know what the words "satire" and "parody" mean don't you? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Reinstating your edit wasn't a good idea. Simply go to the talk page if a revert is questionable. Last Thursdayism isn't a literal belief, but more about general discussion about memories and the importance of falsifiable claims. I also think the categorization and conclusion that this is Holocaust denial is a massive reach. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think your snarky questions and usage of slurs adhere to the CoC on this wiki, specifically the part about "resorting to personal attacks" and "assume good faith". I'm willing to discuss the content of the edits I've made, but feel uncomfortable as a new contributor to do so with someone who's assuming bad faith and calling me a "moron", so I've tried to reach out to other contributors who perhaps can discuss this page in a more civil manner. --RWikiCat (talk)
Calling someone a "moron", while discourteous, isn't a slur. And dragging conflict (and therefore creating drama) to the saloon bar over a petty edit war is not a wise move on your part. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to again point out that Last Thursdayism is a parody of YEC, and as such believing that these people actually buy into this silliness is somewhat idiotic, like believing the Colbert Report or The Onion are actually serious about what they claim, vs using comedy to make a point. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I just don't know what's going on here, and didn't mean any offense. I just tried to make an edit and then got called a "moron" by another user, so I assumes this might be some spammer or someone breaking policy when I read up on the CoC, so I tried so find who was administering the system and found that "saloon bar" when trying to search for some help system.
I see that GrammarCommie is making comments here, but being new I'm unsure if replying to someone who's (seemingly) violating the CoC would also be in violation of the CoC. --RWikiCat (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
We get a lot of trolls and concern trolls, so I suppose that if you're making someone frustrated over an argument they and others perceive as, well, half-baked, especially over a sensitive subject being Holocaust Denial, they'll start hurtling insults. I already told GrammarCommie that the insult isn't necessary and I do suppose you made a mistake, being new here, but I do hope you find my advice helpful. People patrol recent changes often (including me), so I myself was pretty quick to respond. But I think my advice addresses the need to resolve a conflict, but if you find someone insulting you, keep your calm and just say, "hey, that's not cool". And just in case, if you need someone to mediate on a conflict you can always drop a mention through the ping function. And if you don't know how to ping, well, just type {{ping|LeftyGreenMario}} and make sure you sign the comment with ~~~~ or else I won't see the ping in my notification. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to be slightly more polite, since you appear to be serious in your desire to understand this concept. Before reading the page on Last Thursdayism you should first read the page on Young Earth Creationism (which LT parodies) and on other satirical religions (with the understanding that most parody religions are designed to poke fun at certain logical failings of actual religions). Then re-read the LT page with the understanding of what it really is, rather than assuming it's proponents actually believe the universe was created last thursday. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@RWikiCatIn addition let me apologize for insulting you, I should have considered that you might not be familiar with the concept of parody religions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
That's more like it. Th hug.gif
And also, you should be able to understand why the concept of falsifiability is fundamental to science and an overall rational examination of our world. Without falsifiability, you can't really prove something one way or another as you can always create more ad hoc (like saying things just appear older or evidence is faked; or everyone's memories are lies) thought gymnastics to wave away. With that, you can understand what Last Thursdayism is really about. It seems like you're being super literal. While Last Thursdayism would technically account as Holocaust denial, it's not the point of the argument and the argument is no way intended as a means to dismiss the Holocaust, which is why I called it a reach. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 22:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I realize that that Last Thursdayism is a parody. I think what I might have misunderstood is the use of the categorization system on here on RationalWiki. Obviously Last Thursdayism wasn't created to explicitly deny the Holocaust, but since that's a category here that would apply given the idea espoused in the page, shouldn't it be added? Perhaps there's an orthogonal categorization system I missed. To take the example of YEC, if there was a category of denying the K-T impact shouldn't it be added to that page? Similarly if some belief system (no matter if it's intended as a joke) denies events before last Thursday, shouldn't the relevant denial categories be added? I signed up for an account because I was reading about holocaust denial, and then was interested in belief system that might have inadvertently stepped into that territory and found Last Thursdayism. --RWikiCat (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
While theoretically yes, practically... no. To compare your reasoning to similar concepts, saying Last Thursdayism inadvertently promotes holocaust denial is akin to claiming that Kissing Hank's Ass promotes assault, or that Russell's Teapot supports UFO woo. In theory they do, but when put to the test, they don't, being parodies of logical failings rather than actual belief systems. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────GrammarCommie’s last post pretty much sums it up: As Last Thursdayism is a pointed, provocative parody, and thus tongue in cheek rather than serious and meant to be taken at face value (in contrast to YEC), it doesn’t actually promote the slippery slope reasoning that would lead an adherent to embrace Holocaust denial; quite the opposite, in fact.

Similarly, Pastafarianism, being a joke(!) religion doesn’t lead to persecution of Hare Krishna adherents (portrayed as the nemesis of the “good” pirates in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) or to Pastafarians taking to the high seas to embark on a life of piracy — unless someone hasn’t understood the first thing (i.e. the joke) about the “religion”. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

If anything, it is the YEC camp, which Last Thursdayism is set up as an illustrative reductio ad absurdum parody of, which is at the greater risk of succumbing to the kind of thinking that might lead to Holocaust denial, since YEC genuinely tries to explain away well established evidence of (albeit mainly “deep” geological) history as mere illusions. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The idea that the concepts behind "last Thursdayism" are in some sense true are covered under Omphalos hypothesis.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
They're also covered under Oh no, not this crap again. WilderBicycle 20:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)