Theological Parodies (Creator, tradition, Revelation, prophet, atheist)

[Bouncing Ball]

Sorry to pick a quote from the beginning of this thread, but I just had to.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

There are a number of eyewitness accounts of God and his dealings with man in the OT. I see nothing similar with the IPU or the FSM.

There are a number of eyewitness accounts of Aliens. They all "know" because of what they saw that aliens are about 1.60 m, grey and look like humanlike beings who have no need to eat.
Many people saw the Yeti, monster of loch ness etc..
What value has these eyewitnesses to you?

The purpose of the FSM is not to be exactly like the God religious people follow. The purpose is merelly to show it's concept. And not really towards all theists I think, but more towards the people who follow a religion. It shows how awkward it is to believe that wich is written and stuffed with things that make no sense.

[Bouncing Ball]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

want to play?

Even in traditional theology, God is defined as infinite Being. So, what does that mean? What are the implications? Answer this and we’ll continue, but not until then.

Do me! Do me!

Ehr, it means that God has always existed and will always do so. As time is based on the movement between objects or better it's movementchanges. So if all object in the entire universe were standing still, the variable "time" was 0. As God is beyond space and is everywhere, he needs no movement. He just set things in motion and will do so forever.
So, the implications are none. You tell me some implications then..

[Fluffy]

Calling all theists,
In my first post on this thread, I identified why I might want to utilise this sort of parody and hope that I have made it clear that I would never want to use it for ridiculing theism. Additionally, I hope I made clear that I both recognise that some people do use these parodies for that purpose and, also, that many people find these parodies offensive. I noticed that one or two theists have since posted and said they felt this way about the parody.

So my question to all theists: Is there a way to demonstrate the points I make in my first post via parody in an inoffensive way? Is there and alternative to the FSM and IPU which might be less offensive to you?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by rojse

To call atheism a faith is a strawman

No, it's brutal honesty and reality. Reality which is sadly lacking in the mind of many a atheist. It strikes at the heart of their EGO that somehow, their belief system is not superior to that of the theist. It yanks the condescension right out from under their feet and leaves them in the same state as everyone else: believing and not being able to PROVE your beliefs. It's a brutal awakening and not for the feint of heart. Good luck with it.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Ball

Sorry to pick a quote from the beginning of this thread, but I just had to.

There are a number of eyewitness accounts of Aliens. They all "know" because of what they saw that aliens are about 1.60 m, grey and look like humanlike beings who have no need to eat.
Many people saw the Yeti, monster of loch ness etc..
What value has these eyewitnesses to you?

It makes them FAR more believable than the FSM or the IPU. Again, what we have here is the arrogance that comes from disbelief in ANYTHING. We love to get so SMUG that we are not taken in by some "myth" and we lose sight of the fact that WE ARE NO BETTER. Lose the arrogance, the pride and the condescension. It's FINE if you don't believe something, but you don't have to belittle those that DO. It's mean spirited and WRONG.

Originally Posted by Bouncing Ball

The purpose of the FSM is

No, the purpose of these to is to try and embarrass theists with your logical superiority. PROVE conclusively that there is no God and THEN you have that right to feel so smug. Until you do that, I consider those who use such arguments as arrogant elitists. You might value your arrogance while I find it reprehensible. It is far worse than actually BELIEVING in the FSM or the IPU. Why? It's just plain mean.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

The parodies are mere strawman arguments and nothing more.

There are a number of eyewitness accounts of God and his dealings with man in the OT. I see nothing similar with the IPU or the FSM.

At the heart of this argument is the attempt, albeit somewhat humorous, to show a belief in God as being silly. This is an ad hominem attack: where it is the contention that the theist is somehow delusional. The existence or non-existence of God is never addressed, just a jab at those who believe. Puerile? You betcha!

I'm not that familiar with the IPU, but in the case of the FSM, I have to disagree.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was first created to address the problem of unscientific, faith-based material creeping into school science classes. It wasn't created to attack belief in God; it was created to attack the dressing up of religion as science. It's message isn't that Christianity (for example, or any other particular religion) is as correct or valuable as Pastafarianism, it's that they have just as much scientific support in the form of testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence (i.e. the stuff that what we claim science is based on). Things like personal faith or revelation, while certainly important to the individuals who experience them, are not normally considered within the realm of "science" and therefore should not be considered within the scope of the FSM's parody, IMO.

Also, it was intended to point out a major flaw in the movement to get "Intelligent Design" taught in schools: that while the Christian God is purposely never explicitly mentioned, it's implicitly assumed. If ID were what it makes out to be (i.e. an actually valid scientific theory), it would be neutral with regard to what the "intelligent designer" might be. Without additional scientific evidence, the "theory" would have to give just as much consideration a Flying Spaghetti Monster as it would to any other possibility for an intelligent designer. I think that the FSM is a fairly clever way of exposing the true aims of the ID movement: to push religion* into public schools by making it out to be science.

I admit that the Church of the FSM has been attracting more of the "GOD SUX LOLZ!!!" crowd lately, but its core message is about the merits of school curricula, not the merits of anyone's personal beliefs.

All the FSM parody really says is that non-scientific things should not be portrayed as science. Religion may have a place in life and in society, but it's not a good foundation for a science curriculum.



*and not just religion generally, but a particular set of religious beliefs, IMO in contravention of the principle and laws of church-state separation.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was first created to address the problem of unscientific, faith-based material creeping into school science classes. It wasn't created to attack belief in God; it was created to attack the dressing up of religion as science. It's message isn't that Christianity (for example, or any other particular religion) is as correct or valuable as Pastafarianism, it's that they have just as much scientific support in the form of testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence (i.e. the stuff that what we claim science is based on). Things like personal faith or revelation, while certainly important to the individuals who experience them, are not normally considered within the realm of "science" and therefore should not be considered within the scope of the FSM's parody, IMO.

Good point. This is what I was getting at in #15, too. The context has to be considered to understand the purpose of a good satire. People who take a reasoned approach to their faith should save their ire for those whose conduct inspired the creation of the FSM in the first place . . . i.e. what it is specifically parodying.