Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
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?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
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.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?
Please show us where a theist has actually USED this argument.If theists find this offensive, it's probably because the theistic tactics that they're based on are also offensive.
Is the FSM fictional?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.
Please show us where a theist has actually USED this argument.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
The forum rule against evangelism stops the bulk of the statements that would elicit that response, but I'll see what I can find.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 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.I read your reference, and did not see anything close to what you claim, though I only read the first page.
The God of worship claims all allegiance or none. Authentic religion is part and parcel of lifes 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?
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.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.
That's what I said you said: it's not disparaging if everyone is disparaging.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.
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".That's what I said you said: it's not disparaging if everyone is disparaging.
Wow!Yeah, I don't buy it either Rolling Stone!
Only the most obtuse atheism will deny that they have faith, but they have markedly fewer things they have faith in.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.
This is a thoroughly idiotic statement. I can take offense to virtually anything and be just as justified as you are.After all is said and done, isn't it interesting that it is always the offended that determines what's offensive except here.
And you never will.I have yet to hear of a single parody that does not offend anybody.
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.And back up your claim that atheism is a religion. I could dredge up some tired old cliché of not collecting stamps....