GatewayRedbirds.com

I was watching the episode of South Park where they make fun of Richard Dawkins and they use a line I've heard him drop before about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And I'm pretty sure this is popular amongst the anti-religion folk. My two biggest problems with this:

1. Flying Spaghetti Monster? That's not even creative.
2. If you're going to try and turn religion on its ass, try not using logical fallacies.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is proof that scientists need to stick to their labs and lectures and not get into the business of being humorous, because when they do, things like this happen. At least hire some writers!

I approve of this rant 10,000%.

The fact that it exists lets all know that, apparently, the best argument anyone can come up with to "prove" that some system of belief is preposterous and or illogical is to think of the most preposterous and illogical thing of all in order to parody it.

Preposterous is relative, which is kind of the point. And since it's obviously a parody, what do people expect?

If you want the serious version of the burden of proof argument then Bertrand Russell is your guy.

GatewaySnayke wrote:I was watching the episode of South Park where they make fun of Richard Dawkins and they use a line I've heard him drop before about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And I'm pretty sure this is popular amongst the anti-religion folk. My two biggest problems with this:

1. Flying Spaghetti Monster? That's not even creative.
2. If you're going to try and turn religion on its ass, try not using logical fallacies.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is proof that scientists need to stick to their labs and lectures and not get into the business of being humorous, because when they do, things like this happen. At least hire some writers!

They could have called it the Flying Straw Man.

I like when bombastic people get their sore spot touched.

Cronos69 wrote:The fact that it exists lets all know that, apparently, the best argument anyone can come up with to "prove" that some system of belief is preposterous and or illogical is to think of the most preposterous and illogical thing of all in order to parody it.

And this isn't really true. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was originally a humorous (well, not to Snayke) argument against teaching creationism in the classroom. Richard Dawkins uses parody religions and ancient beliefs as a counterpoint to monotheists who say that atheism is itself faith-based because you can't prove that God doesn't exist. It's pretty obvious that this is fallacious because not being able to prove God doesn't exist isn't a reason for belief. Dawkins will insert Zeus, Thor, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster into that line of thinking to make that point.

I don't understand why Christians would make that argument in the first place though. It's grace by faith, not grace by logic hurdles as far as I know.

dangerous wrote:I like when bombastic people get their sore spot touched.

Me too. I'm the one that got the ball rolling on his book when I arranged for 25 Jehova's Witnesses to tie him down and make him listen to The Watchtower.

haltz wrote:Preposterous is relative, which is kind of the point. And since it's obviously a parody, what do people expect?

Right, but more than a few people I know treat this as far more than just a parody; Obviously they're not a serious, practicing member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster as far as I know but they reference it enough that it's more than just a joke or parody, that is, to prove what they're really in support of, or should I say against.

Cronos69 wrote:Right, but more than a few people I know treat this as far more than just a parody; Obviously they're not a serious, practicing member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster as far as I know but they reference it enough that it's more than just a joke or parody, that is, to prove what they're really in support of, or should I say against.

Then they don't understand that it's a burden of proof counterargument, not an argument against monothesim. Christianity doesn't make that argument if my interpretation of the Bible is correct.

Dawkins is annoying, but his point here is a valid one. It's just highlighting an absurd argument for religion; it's not a religion debunking parody. That's stupid.

I think they are using logical fallacies because religion is based on logical fallacies.