Theology of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are an atheist, and you think serious believers believe in a God who is some sort of "sky fairy," "invisible friend," or "flying spaghetting monster," I challenge you to take on the argument put forward by the learned Robert Barron, STD.

Atheists do not know what serious Christians and other believers mean when they say "God."

I love the construct "serious believers". That's just awesome that there are hyper-intellectualized folks who've pushed their deity further and further back into the shadows ("Don't be silly! God isn't an omnipotent being who can answer the prayers of individuals! No 'serious believer' believes that!")

Meanwhile "serious believers" make up around .0001% of all "believers." Frankly "serious believers" are more marginal than atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:there are some believers who do think of god as their invisible friend. They pray to him and think that he listens and does them special favors. What's more, they were taught that in church.

Would they be classified as not serious believers?

Another question - how can a god that is not a being but is being itself send his son down to die for our sins?

Agreed. This is a dodge. Most believers *do* believe in a personal god who is interventionist, etc, etc... The tortuous arguments of "real believers" are basically a way to avoid cognitive dissonance; they need to keep jumping through more and more hoops to define god downward as scientific knowledge makes such beliefs more ridiculous from a rational POV. Of course, this exquisitely constructed nonsense about God as a "quintessentialism of being" or somesuch is completely alien to the vast number of believers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are an atheist, and you think serious believers believe in a God who is some sort of "sky fairy," "invisible friend," or "flying spaghetting monster," I challenge you to take on the argument put forward by the learned Robert Barron, STD.

Atheists do not know what serious Christians and other believers mean when they say "God."

How many Christians believe that God is "being, itself", as opposed to "Jesus, who walks with me, talks with me, and comforts me in my need"? If God is being, then I believe in God, because, like Barron, I see evidence of being "in every nook and cranny" of everything in existence. God is not the flying spaghertti monster, he's a tautology! I think most believing Christians would have far less in common with Barron's world view than most atheists would. Despite my atheism, I love hearing the song "His eye is on the sparow and I know He watches me," and I am positive that those who sing it so beautifully believe in a personal God, not some abstract "essence of being."

This point can't be hammered enough. As the "real believers" define God downward, they essentially render Him meaningless--and alienate themselves from the vast majority of real believers. That's great that you define God as "being" or "the primary cause" or what have you, but it's a philosophical dodge. If "God" is being, then obviously it exists. But only in the same sense that if you define God as "potatoes" then you've proved He exists as well.

Meanwhile, such a gambit does absolutely nothing to lend a shred of credence to the validity of, say, the Bible, Christian beliefs, or the divinity (or even the historical existence) of Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Also, if God is being, then he has no essential characteristics that we can discern. He is just as likely to be pure evil as pure good. That's nice that academic theologians have locked themselves in an ivory tower and reduced God to an irrefutable essence. Only problem with that is that the priests have absolutely zero insight into the God phenomenon then.

[Anonymous]

So, 11:10, that's a bunch of answers to your challenge. We await your response, and I, personally, would welcome thoughts from believers who do not fit the PP's model of "serious believers."

[Anonymous]

Barron's "philosophy"--once you get past the fatuous "God is existence" thing--seems to be a combination of a) Intelligent Design, and b) that believing in God provides a kind of utility to the believer. IOW, that to not believe would lead to despair.

If that's what the Christian intellectuals are reduced to, it's a sad day for formal theological scholarship indeed. Personally it seems the "Sky Buddy" flavor of belief has a bit more integrity.

[Anonymous]

everytime I see "flying spaghetti monster" , I thinks silly made up mommy blogger nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:everytime I see "flying spaghetti monster" , I thinks silly made up mommy blogger nonsense.

The FSM is presented as an atheist joke.

God as "being itself" is presented as a serious theological concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:everytime I see "flying spaghetti monster" , I thinks silly made up mommy blogger nonsense.

Good! Then there's some hope for you (at least from the atheist perspective). The FSM was made up to be a foil for deities that others consider to be "real." If you look at the FSM and say, "That's just silly," then hopefully you will take that same skeptical perspective and apply it to the theology of whatever deity you believe in.

After all, I think it's safe to say that you don't believe in the Greek, Roman, Egyptian or Norse pantheons, and you just consider that mythology to be "primitive beliefs created to explain natural events that they didn't understand," and you smile, patronizingly, when thinking about how science has explained all of those things like weather, germ theory, biology, etc.

Similarly, odds are that you look at the story of Joseph Smith, the gold plates and the hat and think, "Who falls for that? What a con job!"

Then we get to the Scientologists, with the story of Xenu, and most people would look at that and think it's completely silly. After all, aliens, "thetans" and e-meters, along with paid sessions and analysis to advance just seems like a complete scam to those not inside the cult.

But for some reason, when we talk about the mythology of Christianity, all reason goes out the window. Even though you can look at the primitivism and lack of rationality associated with those other belief structures, when we talk about Adam & Eve, talking snakes, burning bushes, parting seas, virgin births, resurrection, transubstantiation, etc., people start jumping up and down about TRUTH.

The mythology of the FSM was created to counter those who were claiming that Creationism/Intelligent Design should be taught in schools because those believers don't like the scientific conclusions based on the Theory of Evolution. If you can look at the FSM mythology and think it's silly, then maybe you'll look at the Christian mythology with a little more scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:there are some believers who do think of god as their invisible friend. They pray to him and think that he listens and does them special favors. What's more, they were taught that in church.

Would they be classified as not serious believers?

Another question - how can a god that is not a being but is being itself send his son down to die for our sins?

Agreed. This is a dodge. Most believers *do* believe in a personal god who is interventionist, etc, etc... The tortuous arguments of "real believers" are basically a way to avoid cognitive dissonance; they need to keep jumping through more and more hoops to define god downward as scientific knowledge makes such beliefs more ridiculous from a rational POV. Of course, this exquisitely constructed nonsense about God as a "quintessentialism of being" or somesuch is completely alien to the vast number of believers.

New poster here. We are mixing a bunch of issues here, and I think this conversation would benefit from separating them out.

First, the question about how a God that is not a separate being can have a son (the Trinity question that's been going around). I don't find this idea challenging at all. The God who is not a separate being is all-powerful (I think we can agree that this power is still part of this concept of God), to the point that God created the heavens. the earth, and all the creatures in it including humans. So this idea of an all-powerful God-being is consistent with the idea that God can create another human, a very special human, to give his message to us. (As opposed to the proverbial bolt of lightening and voice from the sky, in the old testament, which works for me too as a way of God giving us his message.) You can believe it or not (I believe it) but I don't think the concept is very challenging from an intellectual standpoint.

It's a separate issue to ask whether this "being" can intervene in our daily lives. I think it's possible for God-being (as opposed to God the guy with a white beard) to intervene in my daily life if he wanted to. Again, this is consistent with my conception of God as an essence is consistent with a God who is endowed with many powers. But I think this is sort of besides the point. This is really a question along the lines of, does God care if the high school football team wins, if they pray before the big game? To me, the answer is, no. God doesn't care if the football team wins; we can't know what God wants, but to me he wants people to love each other, be kind to the poor, et cetera. To me, "walking with God" is more like partaking of the goodness and faith that is his essence, trying to figure out what the Christian response would be in a given situation, and generally trying (not necessarily succeeding, but trying) to share in God's goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:everytime I see "flying spaghetti monster" , I thinks silly made up mommy blogger nonsense.

Good! Then there's some hope for you (at least from the atheist perspective). The FSM was made up to be a foil for deities that others consider to be "real." If you look at the FSM and say, "That's just silly," then hopefully you will take that same skeptical perspective and apply it to the theology of whatever deity you believe in.

After all, I think it's safe to say that you don't believe in the Greek, Roman, Egyptian or Norse pantheons, and you just consider that mythology to be "primitive beliefs created to explain natural events that they didn't understand," and you smile, patronizingly, when thinking about how science has explained all of those things like weather, germ theory, biology, etc.

Similarly, odds are that you look at the story of Joseph Smith, the gold plates and the hat and think, "Who falls for that? What a con job!"

Then we get to the Scientologists, with the story of Xenu, and most people would look at that and think it's completely silly. After all, aliens, "thetans" and e-meters, along with paid sessions and analysis to advance just seems like a complete scam to those not inside the cult.

But for some reason, when we talk about the mythology of Christianity, all reason goes out the window. Even though you can look at the primitivism and lack of rationality associated with those other belief structures, when we talk about Adam & Eve, talking snakes, burning bushes, parting seas, virgin births, resurrection, transubstantiation, etc., people start jumping up and down about TRUTH.

The mythology of the FSM was created to counter those who were claiming that Creationism/Intelligent Design should be taught in schools because those believers don't like the scientific conclusions based on the Theory of Evolution. If you can look at the FSM mythology and think it's silly, then maybe you'll look at the Christian mythology with a little more scrutiny.

Well the point, that others besides me have made very eloquently, including the PP with the clip, is that the FSM is actually a very bad analogy to religious belief. I just posted the piece above on the Trinity, so I won't repeat the arguments someone else made just a page ago on why the FSM is such a bad analogy, but perhaps you need to review this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This point can't be hammered enough. As the "real believers" define God downward, they essentially render Him meaningless--and alienate themselves from the vast majority of real believers. That's great that you define God as "being" or "the primary cause" or what have you, but it's a philosophical dodge. If "God" is being, then obviously it exists. But only in the same sense that if you define God as "potatoes" then you've proved He exists as well.

Meanwhile, such a gambit does absolutely nothing to lend a shred of credence to the validity of, say, the Bible, Christian beliefs, or the divinity (or even the historical existence) of Jesus.

I guess the point that needs to be hammered here, is that it's about faith. I can't prove God exists. Importantly, you can't prove that Abraham-Moses-Jesus were lying when they talked about bringing God's message. (And as for whether Jesus existed, there is widely-accepted evidence in Roman sources, so the real question is what you think the nature and meaning of his life, but this is a subject for another thread.)

We disagree about the faith question. And that's fine, really. But a little less hammering about what *you* believe to be true might bring you some of the peace that many atheists seem to lack--peace that you could find if you could accept that (a) not everybody thinks exactly like you, and (b) that's actually OK. (Unless religious folks are trying to ban contraceptives or something, and I'm with you on that one.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well the point, that others besides me have made very eloquently, including the PP with the clip, is that the FSM is actually a very bad analogy to religious belief. I just posted the piece above on the Trinity, so I won't repeat the arguments someone else made just a page ago on why the FSM is such a bad analogy, but perhaps you need to review this thread.

I'm not sure what arguments you're talking about, because from page 5 through the top of page 8 there's very little eloquence and a lot of sniping, until we get to the 11:10 post with the video, and even there the eloquence was in the video, not the challenge itself.

As far as the Trinity is concerned, if you're going to take your religion on faith (there's a tautology for you!), then you can believe whatever you want to, because if you're going to involve a supernatural, magical element then there's no need to be logically consistent about anything. I'm not going to argue with you about the Trinity, because that's your belief about your religion. It makes no difference to me. As long as it helps you get through life it's fine with me.

As I said above, the FSM mythology was created for one purpose. It isn't intended to be a full service religion because that's not the point. The reason the FSM mythology and Pastafarianism were created was to provide a counterpoint to those who object to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution and who want Creationism/Intelligent Design taught in public school because they believe the Bible provides the literal and inerrant Word of God. The FSM mythology provides a satirical alternate creation construct so that, if someone claims Biblical Creationism should be taught in school, non-believers can use Pastafarianism to make the point that if you teach one set of religious beliefs you have to teach them all.

No one claims that Pastafarianism is a complete religion (except, possibly, Christians with a persecution complex looking for a threat). It is a parody created and propagated by people who, generally, do not believe in deities or, at most, believe in the kind of extra-universal creator that is discussed in the video about what "serious believers" think.

As for the "hammering," I agree with you. We could all do with a little less hammering with regard to anyone's beliefs or religion (or lack thereof).

I think most atheists, agnostics, non-Christians and Pastafarians would agree that what we'd like is a little less emphasis in the US on Christianity in public. If politicians and other public figures would stop trying to enact laws that codify some purported Christian dogma, stop whining about the "War on Christmas", stop claiming that natural disasters are "God's revenge" for our culture of tolerance and, generally, stop proving Ghandi right about Christians*, then we could all get on with our lives, worship (or not) as we choose, and try to make the world a little better place for each other.

We'd also like the fundamentalist Islamics and ultra-orthodox Jews to stop acting like assholes in the name of their respective religions.

=============
*"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As I said above, the FSM mythology was created for one purpose. It isn't intended to be a full service religion because that's not the point. The reason the FSM mythology and Pastafarianism were created was to provide a counterpoint to those who object to the teaching of the Theory of Evolution and who want Creationism/Intelligent Design taught in public school because they believe the Bible provides the literal and inerrant Word of God. The FSM mythology provides a satirical alternate creation construct so that, if someone claims Biblical Creationism should be taught in school, non-believers can use Pastafarianism to make the point that if you teach one set of religious beliefs you have to teach them all.

No one claims that Pastafarianism is a complete religion (except, possibly, Christians with a persecution complex looking for a threat). It is a parody created and propagated by people who, generally, do not believe in deities or, at most, believe in the kind of extra-universal creator that is discussed in the video about what "serious believers" think.

This is what's so discouraging about talking with DCUM's atheists. We're not asking you to agree with us, absolutely not asking you to agree with us. We are, however, asking you to read what we write. The point the PP with the video was making is that the FSM responds to a false notion of what religion is all about - nobody believes in a grey-bearded guy up there, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim. Yes, I'm aware of the FSM's origins in the Creationism debate, and I'm with you that Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools. But your points on the history of the FSM and that it was never intended to be a full-service religion don't respond to the basic idea that the FSM is a bad -- as in incomplete and inaccurate representation -- of religion. So it doesn't serve the purpose you claim it does.

[Anonymous]

We are, however, asking you to read what we write. The point the PP with the video was making is that the FSM responds to a false notion of what religion is all about - nobody believes in a grey-bearded guy up there, be they Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

Actually, the PP with the video just said, "If you are an atheist, and you think serious believers believe in a God who is some sort of "sky fairy," "invisible friend," or "flying spaghetti monster," I challenge you to take on the argument put forward by the learned Robert Barron, STD." which I believe several of us did. I was the 11:10 poster. I think his position that God is the "essence of being" is a retreat in the face of scientific advances to the point that God is effectively irrelevant, and the position does nothing to support any Biblical aspect of Christian theology. I think several others interpreted it in a similar way.

I would also contend, although I lack any data to support this, that your concept of "serious believers" is an example of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Christians hold the vision of Heaven as God, Jesus, Mary and the angels floating around in a nimbus-y haze, and they still imagine "God the Father" as something like the bug guy with the white beard. After all, they have lots of images of Jesus, things like the hand of God in the "Creation of Adam" in the Sistine Chapel, etc. I would argue that many more believers, excluding, of course, your "serious believers," believe in the concept of "walking with Jesus" rather than God as the "essence of being."

As far as your contention that the FSM isn't what "serious believers" believe about the nature of God and that it's an inaccurate representation of what religion is about, my first response would be, "Yep. You're right, but it's a parody."

However, I would also argue that the aspect of Christianity that it is parodying is a similarly poor an inaccurate representation of what religion is about. The creationists who struggle to reconcile Biblical literalism with science are a small but vocal bunch of conservative zealots, and the silliness of the FSM model provides a good foil for their vision of Christianity that they'd like to force down everyone else's throat.