Bells
Staff member
How is the FSM any more absurd than the Christian God?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Bells
Staff member
Well if I had just said "he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!", he probably wouldn't have understood...
Yes no need to take what I say too seriously. It's only religion, no need to be too serious about it all. I thought what I said was obviously absurd though... but maybe being absurd isn't enough to disqualify you from being taken seriously when discussing this particular topic lol
I'm sorry, it's just that this is the same subforum in which posters have maintained that deists are actually atheists, "compassion" is just a form of politeness, and satire isn't really satire when it ridicules what you happen to believe in. That last bit happened in this very thread. You'll have to forgive me if my radar for irony is on the fritz.
Last edited:
In what way is the FSM fallacious?
The fact that it was set up and created purely to demonstrate a point does not make it fallacious per se.
What it did do was to highlight the fallacious reasoning of those wishing to teach unflasifiable concepts such as Intelligent , over and above other unfalsifiable concepts such as the FSM.
While I agree that Christianity is dressed in somewhat more respectable clothing, at the heart of both is what many consider an unprovable entity - akin to Russell's Celestial Teapot.
Whether it is an entity called God or whether it is an entity called the FSM, the core remains the same.
The parody of the FSM is not in the aspect that it is an unfalsifiable entity but in the clothes it wears. The parody is in the religion that follows the FSM.
The parody is between Christianity and Pastafarianism... and the various beliefs surrounding the FSM and God (including what they may look like, their image etc).
And in this regard I find one no more absurd than the other: I consider both are unfalsifiable claims.
I do, however, find the accompanying religion and/or other claims surrounding one more absurd than those that surround the other.
To Christians, Jehovah is very much provable.
So why should outsiders - non-Christians - have the say over what is at the heart of Christianity and what isn't?
As for what is at the heart of Pastafarianism:
I'd say that at the heart of it is the tension between two opposite desires: the desire to be epistemologically self-sufficient, and the desire to be epistemologically connected to others.
Pastafarianism is unable to resolve this tension, hence all the ridicule of others as a means of the Pastafarian to distract himself from his actual problem.
Pastafarianism is epistemological self-victimization.
Although I'm sure some FSM supporters would disagree with me ...
That's not true. Some Christians argue that there is good reason to believe, but most would say that it is a matter of faith rather than reason. In fact, I'm certain all would say the same about elements of it, even if not in regards to its truth.
This is a non-sequitor. Simply because you think Christianity is provable (let's say falsifiable), it does not then follow that only Christians have the authority to speak to matters of the faith.
All one has to do is study the religion to know what it is "about." It's like any other field of study.
I'd say you don't know what "epistemology" means.
And you are under the false apprehension that this by default would render your assessment incorrect.
Moderator note:
I have split off a few posts on the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) view of science and religion into a separate thread, which can be found here:
[thread=113614]Should religion and science be regarded as NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria)?[/thread]
I have split off a few posts on the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) view of science and religion into a separate thread, which can be found here:
[thread=113614]Should religion and science be regarded as NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria)?[/thread]
I infer from your comments, though, that its use resembles a general attack on the concept of a single deity, the latter concept being the root of concepts like ID and so forth. It's initial intention was a comment on ID, but in the common usage it not infrequently ends up being a general attack on religion. It makes a point, but isn't a good contrast, because it's knowingly fallacious: it was deliberately invented. While there's no proof of the existence of any god at all, I don't think we can use a deliberate invention to compare to.
Now, if you wanted to contrast it with unicorns or the like, you'd have a proper contrast.
God is also a deliberate invention.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Can you explain this to me? The definition given on wiki is a little befuddling. My belief is that angels are the embodiment of pure emotion, and the angel Science is number four in all Heaven. What im trying to say is when Science speaks you (religion) shut up. Science is light years ahead of religion. I have faith in God, always have. I have always hated church and questioned its divinity. Science on the other hand....
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Speculation.
The point of the FSM wasn't to disprove God, but to show how absurd those same qualities would be when attributed to something else. Anything else, really.
Okay, now I'm confused. Unicorns are no less fake than the FSM.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
You are simple. God is the all powerful force of the universe. If you want to call God FSM, be my guest.
Coming from you, that's almost too cute to take offense to.
This went way over your head, clearly. No one is calling God the FSM. Try reading it again, kiddo.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Then why are we talking about FSM? You are saying if I can claim God, you can claim anything? That is absurd too me as I do believe in an ultimate power that would take FSM, and unicorns out of death, or hiding and put them into life to test them. The God I believe in is all powerful.
This is why I say you're punching above your weight. How can you ask this question four pages into the discussion?
No. The FSM demonstrates how ridiculous God's traits are when applied to something that isn't revered and thousands of years old. It would work equally well if we were to start the Church of Mike, the All-Powerful Bus Driver. The point is, nobody would take any of this stuff seriously if it didn't come piggybacked on some ancient skymonster. Just like when people walk around today claiming to have heard God's voice, they're called crazy by atheists and theists alike, even though those kinds of people are the basis for your faith. What part of your religion doesn't include someone claiming to have received messages from God in a dream or vision, or seen him in a bush or a cloud?
This sentence makes no sense.
Clearly. So is the FSM. I don't see what your point is, though.