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

[Jaiket]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is sometimes invoked as an analogue to the creator type deity often espoused by theists. The parody highlights the issue of availability of evidence. It doesn't often go down well.

Is it unfair to do so?

If you are theist, on what grounds can the FSM and his ilk be dismissed?

[Fluffy]

The parody is invoked when the atheist wishes to illustrate their position by attempting to place the theist in their shoes. Most of the attributes of the FSM or IPU are essentially arbitrary. The two necessary attributes of the parody are:
1) The theist will consider their to be no evidence for the existence of the parody
2) The theist will not consider the parody to exist

The weird, self contradictory and humorous attributes of these parodies are there, essentially, to ensure that these two key attributes are preserved for the vast majority of people.

The process goes like this:
1) The theist acknowledges that the atheist believes their is no evidence for the existence of God
2) The theist acknowledges that the atheist does not believe in God
3) The theist asks the atheist whether he considers argument X to provide a reason for the atheist to believe in God
4) The atheist asks the theist whether he considers argument X to be applicable to the parody as well
5) If the theist agrees that argument X applies to both God and the parody yet does not wish to believe in the existence of the parody then he must accept that from the perspective of the atheist, argument X is a poor argument for the existence of God
6) If the theist disagrees that argument X applies to both God and the parody then they are enlightened as to the specific reason why the atheist cannot accept their argument. The theist is now the prime position to restate their argument in order to clear up the difficulty which the atheist is having.

Unfortunately, this process rarely happens because theists often find such parodies to be offensive and dismiss the atheist when they bring them up. I feel that this is largely justified because the FSM is, afterall, a parody, and it shouldn't be up to the theist to discern whether he is speaking to a militant or amicable atheist especially on the internet where these things are often hard to determine.

In the spirit of making the argument more workable, I hope I have explained here quite clearly what the atheist is attempting to do when he invokes the FSM or IPU etc and would ask those theists who find such parodies to be offensive to please offer an alternative which they would not find offensive but clearly displays the attributes necessary for the parody to be valuable. After all, what is the point of trying to initiate this process in the spirit of furthering understanding when we know that half the time, it will turn into a flame war due to our inability to find an unoffensive parody.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is sometimes invoked as an analogue to the creator type deity often espoused by theists. The parody highlights the issue of availability of evidence. It doesn't often go down well.

Is it unfair to do so?

If you are theist, on what grounds can the FSM and his ilk be dismissed?

Parody and satire is THE most powerful form of Revelation.

From Jonathan Swift to the writings of Philip K. Dick and George Orwell, to comedians like Lenny Bruce, George Carlin and Stephen Colbert, and sacreligions like SubGenius, Discordia, FSM/Flying Pink Unicorn . . . there are prophets who work in the magic of satire reveal to me things about myself that I would never be able to hear in a debate or an argument. It brings into the light of day, things we keep in the shadows and can't easily bring ourselves to look upon directly.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is sometimes invoked as an analogue to the creator type deity often espoused by theists. The parody highlights the issue of availability of evidence. It doesn't often go down well.

Is it unfair to do so?

If you are theist, on what grounds can the FSM and his ilk be dismissed?

I do not think it is unfair.

Firstly, if we are going to go on evidence, the FSM is just as provable a concept as God. The only real difference is that the FSM has not been worshipped for the past two thousand years. If we had people brought up in the FSM tradition, I am sure they would consider the abrahamic God as something akin to our dismissal of the FSM.

So-called "parody gods" are a good illustration of what is illogical about more pedestrian religions.

Seeing as though we are talking about an omniprescent and omnipotent God, I do not see any huge physical or mental requirements upon this being that prevent God from being two meatballs and some spaghetti strands. In fact, if God is omnipotent, and can do anything that he wishes, he could certainly do this.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is sometimes invoked as an analogue to the creator type deity often espoused by theists. The parody highlights the issue of availability of evidence. It doesn't often go down well.

Is it unfair to do so?

It's stupid--as are the people who would use such a parody.

If you are theist, on what grounds can the FSM and his ilk be dismissed?

The parody refutes itself.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

It's stupid--as are the people who would use such a parody.

The parody refutes itself.

I would like to know how you dismiss the parody without dismissing your God.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

It's stupid--as are the people who would use such a parody.

On what grounds though?

Originally Posted by Rolling Stone

The parody refutes itself.

I'm not seeing that, can you elaborate?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by rojse

I would like to know how you dismiss the parody without dismissing your God.

From what I have read of Rollings Stone's contributions I'd hazard that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a fair parody of what he describes God to be. There are concepts of Gods held by some RF members that fall prey more readily.

I wonder though that beyond some amusement, there appears to be no real product yielded from invoking the FSM.

[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!

The real crux of the matter is that theism and atheism require the same amounts of faith. A contention either way can only be precipitated by a viable belief. A complete lack of belief would end in a question, and not an assertion.

In the end, this is just another way to act condescendingly towards those who believe differently than you. There is no difference here between this assertion and an extremist's contention that an atheist has no morals. All of these serve to vilify and/or alienate those who believe differently than you do. There is no need or room for such pejoration in a civil discussion or debate.