Theological Parodies

[Yerda]

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.

 

[doppelganger]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Yerda]

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

On what grounds though?

The parody refutes itself.

I'm not seeing that, can you elaborate?

 

[Yerda]

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.

 

[doppelganger]

On what grounds though?

These parodies merely bring out the absurdity in what they are responding to . . . . so Rojse is right, if you think they are stupid then it's because you think the image of "God" they satirize is stupid. If one does not consider "God" to be represented in that image, then one need not feel threatened by a satire of an image one does not worship.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

Of course, you yourself Pete repeatedly point out the absurdity of the judgmental and pompous nonsense justified in the name of "God," all of it likewise justified by people advocating by pointing to things in the OT.

 

[Yerda]

The parodies are mere strawman arguments and nothing more.

I understand why you might think that, but I don't believe it is entirely accurate.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Of course, you yourself Pete repeatedly point out the absurdity of the judgmental and pompous nonsense justified in the name of "God," all of it likewise justified by people advocating by pointing to things in the OT.

I actually should have included the NT as well. However, there is a tendency among us to discount something JUST BECAUSE it didn't happen to us. This is elitism at it's worst.

As it is, there are NO adherents to either the FSM or the IPU. There are no religious books purported to have been written that were inspired by these two entities. Consequently, there is absolutely no comparison between these and any Abrahamic religion.

No, the use of these comparisons is only showing the delusion of the person who thinks that they are a valid argument. They are mean spirited and do nothing but stop discussions. You do yourself a disservice by employing them.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I understand why you might think that, but I don't believe it is entirely accurate.

Well great. Why don't you give us your insight as to why people employ such a mean spirited argument. While you are at it, please tell us why you think such drivel is useful in a civilized discussion.

 

[doppelganger]

Well great. Why don't you give us your insight as to why people employ such a mean spirited argument. While you are at it, please tell us why you think such drivel is useful in a civilized discussion.

It's no more or less useful that drivel about arguments by authority asserting that some judgmental or hateful attitude is alright because "God" told the person espousing it that it was actually "love" despite all appearances to the contrary. FSM/IPU are a satire of religion that has already made a mockery of itself. As satire, it merely teases the mockery out by changing the context.

Now I know you don't approach your faith like that Pete. In fact, from what I've read, I think you and I fundamentally approach Christianity in the same way - that's it is first and foremost about the spirituality of love rather than dogma, authority or beliefs.

But take into account the context in which these satires arise. FSM, for example, was in the context of responding to attempts to get the Kansas school board to mandate the teaching of aspects of particular religious creeds to everyone's kids using public money. If that generates scorn and disdain for Christianity, rather than blaming those who find it scornful, perhaps those who advocate such things should take a look in the mirror to see why people find FSM and IPU appealing.

Discordia is a little different. It is another folk inflection of mysticism at its heart.

Keep in mind that Christianity itself can be reasonably understood as a sort of parody on legalistic Judaism.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I cant tell whether it challenges Abrahamic religion or just religion in general.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

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

My initial reaction to this was, “You’ve got to be kidding.” I consider conventional or traditional theology to be weak in some areas, but even to it the “parody“ is so much monkey gibberish. My second reaction was to brush it off since it’s already been addressed several times and the definition of insanity is to repeat the same thing over and over and expecting to get different results. But then I realized that I saw it coming and I am a little insane--but not totally so I’ll play the game by my rules. I’ll take it step by step so there will be no excuse for further foolishness.

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.

 

[Somkid]

I use The Flying Spaghetti Monster in all of my philosophy of religion classes just to make a point. My students love it!

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I use The Flying Spaghetti Monster in all of my philosophy of religion classes just to make a point. My students love it!

What does that make you and your students? (See post #5.)

 

[Somkid]

What does that make you and your students? (See post #5.)

It makes us opened minded people that like to have a little fun when things get too serious. You can see how many people in higher education use this site, click the link below.

Evidence at Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster