Theological Parodies

[Scuba Pete]

If you think that these have not been used in this manner you live a sheltered life. What specific arguments do you think they debunk?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you think that these have not been used in this manner you live a sheltered life. What specific arguments do you think they debunk?

I didn't say that they hadn't been used that way. A rhetorical tactic like a theological parody is a tool; just because a hammer can be used as a weapon doesn't mean it can't be used to hammer nails.

I think that theological parodies speak against the argument that can be used towards atheists that effectively becomes something like this:

"I claim that some set of things that you consider to be improbable (or perhaps even logically contradictory) are actually true. I assert that I'm privy to some very compelling evidence and support for these things, but I'm either unwilling or unable to share this evidence and support with you. Whatever your disagreements with this claim, I assert without proof that they're incorrect or unfounded. If you don't accept these beliefs, I'll portray this decision as a personal failure on your part and a negative reflection on your character."
​

Parodies like the IPU, Russell's Teapot, and (in some circumstances) the FSM turn this idea around. It's an example of the consistency trap: they ask the theistic evangelist to do exactly what they ask of the atheist. If theists find this offensive, it's probably because the theistic tactics that they're based on are also offensive.

 

[Scuba Pete]

If theists find this offensive, it's probably because the theistic tactics that they're based on are also offensive.

Please show us where a theist has actually USED this argument.

I would suggest that the predominant use of the IPU, FSM and the like has been to try and embarrass theists that somehow they believe in a myth as silly as _____________... fill in the blank with your religious parody here.

 

[Troublemane]

My favorite parody is the Cthulhu Mythos--it was created by HP Lovecraft about 70 years ago, has a huge following, almost every modern horror author has been influenced by it, and theres even a growing number of religious groups based on it. Even though Lovecraft himself claimed to have made up the Necronomicon, theres still a large number of people who think its real, and there are at least 4 necronomicons (maybe 5-6 even) that claim to be the real one....hows that for art imitating life?

 

[Phasmid]

As weak and unpersuading this argument is, the fact is, the FSM is known to be fictional, while the God of the Bible is up to debate.

 

[Yerda]

As weak and unpersuading this argument is, the fact is, the FSM is known to be fictional, while the God of the Bible is up to debate.

Is the FSM fictional?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please show us where a theist has actually USED this argument.

This thread is the most recent example of something that's pretty close to what I describe.

I would suggest that the predominant use of the IPU, FSM and the like has been to try and embarrass theists that somehow they believe in a myth as silly as _____________... fill in the blank with your religious parody here.

I disagree. It's a way of saying "your belief in _______ is no more compelling for me than my belief in the IPU, FSM, and the like would be for you." It's a humourous way of calling "shenanigans" and pointing out shifty debating & evangelization tactics.

If a person has some personal experience that leads them to a religion, that's fine. If they weigh their own feelings and personal convictions and decide on religion, that's fine too. However, none of that necessarily means that there's any sort of objective evidence floating out there for all to see that will lead every single person who isn't foolish/stupid/evil/wilfully blind/etc. to the same religion.

Parody religion is a way of saying "you want me to swallow what you're dishing out? You go first."

 

[Scuba Pete]

Parody religion is a way of saying "you want me to swallow what you're dishing out? You go first."

Swallow what we are dishing out? There's some condescension for you. It's as if theists are trying to make you believe something that they don't. It's like you are saying that we KNOW we believe in a pack of lies and that we are trying to deceive you with them. How utterly sad that you would think that of me. What a poor way to treat your fellow man... just because you can.

This type of bias is disgusting to me. I should bow out of this discussion before I spew as I have already been censured for speaking the truth in it. Thanks for letting me know how you truly feel about theists. It's been a revelation for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Edit: if you're not presenting extraordinary claims with very little evidence to atheists and expecting them to be convinced, then you're not "dishing out" the thing I'm talking about.

Swallow what we are dishing out? There's some condescension for you. It's as if theists are trying to make you believe something that they don't. It's like you are saying that we KNOW we believe in a pack of lies and that we are trying to deceive you with them. How utterly sad that you would think that of me. What a poor way to treat your fellow man... just because you can.

If you think that I was trying to tar you personally with that brush, then I think you should re-read what I've written.

When I use theological parodies in an argument, it's to call attention to the tactics I mentioned earlier. If you don't use those tactics (and you've implied you don't, and I've never seen you behave that way here anyhow), then you aren't included in the group of theists that I'm describing.

I think we should make a distinction between the quality of a belief and the quality of an argument. It's easily possible to come up with a bad argument for something good; as a more clear example, consider this: if someone were to claim that the reason why babies should be fed is to keep them from turning into gremlins, then I hope we could both recognize that this is a very bad rationale for feeding babies. At the same time, though, feeding babies itself is a very good thing... the reasons why just don't have anything to do with gremlins. The fact that the claim as presented is a poor foundation doesn't mean that the thing being argued for itself has no foundation.

In a similar way, I think that when properly used, parody religions attack the argument, not the belief. If you've been confronted with things like "heh, heh, why do you believe in Jesus? There's just as much reason to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster", then yes, I agree that this sort of use crosses the line. It makes the kind of presumptions that, IMO, proper use of parody religion calls attention to and speaks against.

However, I think that parody religions can be used properly, effectively and humourously; as I've tried to express before, I think that proper use is like "you've given me no more reason to believe in Jesus/Krishna/etc. than to believe in the IPU" rather than "you have no more reason to believe in Jesus/Krishna/etc. than to believe in the IPU."

And the FSM is a special case: its message is specifically "what you want to add to our kids science curriculum is not scientific* and violates the principle of the separation of church and state."

*remembering that "true" and "scientific" are not necessarily the same thing.

This type of bias is disgusting to me. I should bow out of this discussion before I spew as I have already been censured for speaking the truth in it. Thanks for letting me know how you truly feel about theists. It's been a revelation for me.

I'm not sure where you're getting this idea of bias. I can only assume that you may be inferring things into what I'm writing that, IMO, aren't there. I don't really see how someone can get as offended as you seem to be at the idea that it can be funny to mock crappy arguments when they're thrown at you. I think we may be speaking across each other a bit here.

I have no problem with theists. Who I do have negative feelings toward are people who would try to impose their views on me rather than make a reasoned case for their point of view. Attacking a line of argument doesn't automatically mean attacking the position that the person is arguing. I've seen awful arguments from atheists as well, but you need other tactics when dealing with them... parody religions aren't as effective with atheists.

Maybe we need to back up a bit. Here's my position: when misused, parody religions can be offensive and inappropriate, but when used in their (IMO) proper way, they can be funny, effective and acceptable. It seems like your position is that parody religion is always offensive and always inappropriate. Is that a fair assessment? If so, I have trouble seeing why this must be.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It seems like your position is that parody religion is always offensive and always inappropriate. Is that a fair assessment? If so, I have trouble seeing why this must be.

A misrepresentation is almost always inappropriate. Take the Santa Claus vs God thread. That's the TYPICAL use of parodies. However, I don't believe I see you in there trying to correct their fallacious approach. For the most part, atheists take the "logician" approach of claiming that only they use logic/facts/etc. The implications are obvious. Rarely, incredibly rarely do I see this used as you are saying it should be used. In fact, I would love for you to show this being used correctly on this forum (other than this thread). Happy hunting.

I read your reference, and did not see anything close to what you claim, though I only read the first page.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

The God of worship claims all allegiance or none. Authentic religion is part and parcel of life’s struggle; not something that is added as a decoration to embellish human existence. To isolate a part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and distort religion. Even the very concept of religion effectively destroys the reality toward which it is supposed to point. The spurious quality of the term allows religion to be considered as another attribute of a person, like “ethical,” “artistic,” or “scientific.” But authentic religion is not one concern alongside others; it “does not allow a person to be also religious.” (Tillich) Corresponding to the spatialization of religion is the spatialization of the Divine itself: God being understood as one being alongside other beings. ​

​

How, then, can the FSM not be derogatory?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A misrepresentation is almost always inappropriate. Take the Santa Claus vs God thread. That's the TYPICAL use of parodies. However, I don't believe I see you in there trying to correct their fallacious approach.

Is that my job? I thought it was obvious that the claim presented there was a bad one. Do you think me chiming in with the others pointing this fact out would actually help matters?

If that's the use of parodies that you've encountered most often, then I suppose it's typical for you. It's not typical for me.

For the most part, atheists take the "logician" approach of claiming that only they use logic/facts/etc. The implications are obvious. Rarely, incredibly rarely do I see this used as you are saying it should be used. In fact, I would love for you to show this being used correctly on this forum (other than this thread). Happy hunting.

The forum rule against evangelism stops the bulk of the statements that would elicit that response, but I'll see what I can find.

I read your reference, and did not see anything close to what you claim, though I only read the first page.

I see that the OP's signature (which he refers to in his first post) has changed; it originally contained some rather inflammatory remarks about what he thought made atheists atheists.

The God of worship claims all allegiance or none. Authentic religion is part and parcel of life’s struggle; not something that is added as a decoration to embellish human existence. To isolate a part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and distort religion. Even the very concept of religion effectively destroys the reality toward which it is supposed to point. The spurious quality of the term allows religion to be considered as another attribute of a person, like “ethical,” “artistic,” or “scientific.” But authentic religion is not one concern alongside others; it “does not allow a person to be also religious.” (Tillich) Corresponding to the spatialization of religion is the spatialization of the Divine itself: God being understood as one being alongside other beings. ​

How, then, can the FSM not be derogatory?

Talking about "religion" by itself is a societally accepted practice. If you don't like it, I think your real problem is with the world at large, society, or perhaps our use of language... not with theological parodies specifically.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Now there's a deep and unique insight for RF: if you can't argue to the point, say it's okay to be disparaging because everyone else is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now there's a deep and unique insight for RF: if you can't argue to the point, say it's okay to be disparaging because everyone else is.

No, I'm saying that calling religion a distinct thing isn't generally considered to be offensive, so there's no reason to say that it is in this case either.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No, I'm saying that calling religion a distinct thing isn't generally considered to be offensive, so there's no reason to say that it is in this case either.

That's what I said you said: it's not disparaging if everyone is disparaging.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's what I said you said: it's not disparaging if everyone is disparaging.

No, it's not disparaging at all. That's my point: it's not disparaging in any other context, it's not disparaging generally, and it's not disparaging in this specific case either. Referring to religion as a discrete thing is not disparaging in any sense of the word "disparaging".

It seems like you're letting yourself get offended by something that is generally not considered to be offensive. If you still think a problem exists, maybe you should consider whether the problem lies with everyone else, or with you.

Edit: it's not a matter of justifying something bad by declaring that it's no worse than something else, or justifying something bad by declaring that it's common practice. It's a matter of recognizing that the thing is not bad in any way whatsoever.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yeah, I don't buy it either Rolling Stone!

Put the shoe on the other foot... if you tell an atheist they are acting out of faith or that they are just another religion, just watch the angst and the denial. Kinda funny really.

 

[yossarian22]

Yeah, I don't buy it either Rolling Stone!

Wow!
So we have at least 2 people who are offended by something they read. Stop the presses!

Put the shoe on the other foot... if you tell an atheist they are acting out of faith or that they are just another religion, just watch the angst and the denial. Kinda funny really.

Only the most obtuse atheism will deny that they have faith, but they have markedly fewer things they have faith in.

And back up your claim that atheism is a religion. I could dredge up some tired old cliché of not collecting stamps....

After all is said and done, isn't it interesting that it is always the offended that determines what's offensive except here.

This is a thoroughly idiotic statement. I can take offense to virtually anything and be just as justified as you are.
How dare you compare my pepperoni to ham!
It is also thoroughly inane in terms of an objection. I don't care if you find my response offensive; that fact alone does not invalidate my argument in the slightest. I find it curious why anybody would care if people were offended by an argument. Especially a parody. I have yet to hear of a single parody that does not offend anybody.

 

[McBell]

I have yet to hear of a single parody that does not offend anybody.

And you never will.
Because we are in the age of being offended.
Why?
Because being offended gives one all manner of power.
Here is one example:

FOXNews.com - Anti-Illegal Immigration Group Calls for 'Absolut' Vodka Boycott - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
​

 

[Scuba Pete]

And back up your claim that atheism is a religion. I could dredge up some tired old cliché of not collecting stamps....

Should the government be allowed to pass laws governing your beliefs about atheism? If not, then it falls under the legal definition of a religion. Atheists should have the same protection afforded to them that any religion has. Of course, they have the same responsibilities as well.