79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: − + − + − + + Line 64:
Line 65: − + − + Line 84:
Line 85: − + + Line 111:
Line 113: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster (view source)
Revision as of 21:34, February 24, 2013
, 21:34, February 24, 2013→Neutrality
::::: Why not? That's all you did. And no, I don't particularly care to present any. Not for somebody who criticises something that he knows next to nothing about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Why not? That's all you did. And no, I don't particularly care to present any. Not for somebody who criticises something that he knows next to nothing about. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::::: I have read the bible cover to cover, and most of the Koran. I am not trying to undermine your belief, simply to understand it. I recieve the same reaction from the faithful everytime. They can talk for hours about why there must be a creator, but are stubbornly silent when asked why they have chosen their particular God out of thousands.
:::::: I have read the bible cover to cover, and most of the Koran. I am not trying to undermine your belief, simply to understand it. I recieve the same reaction from the faithful everytime. They can talk for hours about why there must be a creator, but are stubbornly silent when asked why they have chosen their particular God out of thousands. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::::::: You "received the same reaction ... everytime", but the "reaction" you received here was to a ''different'' question. You have not asked us why our "particular God" is the right one. And this is not really the place to do it anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::There is a great deal of evidence to support the "claims" of Christianity, as well as a 2000 year history, as opposed to a recently made up mockery of religion. It's not equivalent.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::There is a great deal of evidence to support the "claims" of Christianity, as well as a 2000 year history, as opposed to a recently made up mockery of religion. It's not equivalent.[[User:RobertK|RobertK]] 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Longevity is not evidence. There are older beleifs and religions than christianity. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
:::: Longevity is not evidence. There are older beleifs and religions than christianity. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::::: That depends on how you look at it, but it ''is'' evidence of a sort. See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::: That depends on how you look at it, but it ''is'' evidence of a sort. See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::: Im sorry but that website is a load of waffle. The success of any religion is not a testament to its truth, nor is it a sign of divine favour. If anything religion spreads where there is lack of or poor education and retreats where confronted with it. Hence christianity and islam are on the rise in Africa and latin america, wheras it is in decline in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand.
:::::: Im sorry but that website is a load of waffle. The success of any religion is not a testament to its truth, nor is it a sign of divine favour. If anything religion spreads where there is lack of or poor education and retreats where confronted with it. Hence christianity and islam are on the rise in Africa and latin america, wheras it is in decline in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::::::: If you are going to reject a good web-site as "a load of waffle", then you are not really interested in learning. The article I pointed you to did not say that Christianity is true simply because it's been successful. If that's what you think, then you either didn't read it or didn't read it properly. Christianity is on the rise in other places than those you mention, including, I'm reasonably sure, here in Australia, if you discount those who go to church for social reasons or put "Christian" on the census forms out of tradition. In other words, "true" Christians as opposed to "nominal" Christians are increasing in number in Australia, I'd be reasonably sure. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)
==FSM and ID criticism==
==FSM and ID criticism==
*This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.
*This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.
A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>
A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm]
*If there's really a book, is it about the parody itself, or is it a critique of [[Intelligent design]]?
*If there's really a book, is it about the parody itself, or is it a critique of [[Intelligent design]]?
The parody was created to mock the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in Kansas science classrooms. <ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
The parody was created to mock the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in Kansas science classrooms. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]
*Too obvious for words.
*Too obvious for words.
: {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
: {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
: It was designed to mock creationism, not dogmatism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)
: It was designed to mock creationism, not dogmatism. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:: It was designed to mock beleif in particular gods, not specifically creationism. My point is that it does not ridicule beleif in a creator, just what non-theists consider 'man-made' religions. Therefore, it is not inherintly atheist.
:: It was designed to mock beleif in particular gods, not specifically creationism. My point is that it does not ridicule beleif in a creator, just what non-theists consider 'man-made' religions. Therefore, it is not inherintly atheist. {{unsigned|Mcai9mh3}}
::: It was designed, as the article indicates, as a response to the decision to allow teaching of Intelligent Design in Kansas. In the minds of anti-ID people, ID is creationism. Therefore, it was designed to mock ID and creationism. It does ridicule belief in a creator, by implying that believing in God is equivalent to believing in the spaghetti monster. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:51, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:It's fine if you believe it, but this is an encyclopedia not an op ed section. The [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Comandments]] state "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources" and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."
:It's fine if you believe it, but this is an encyclopedia not an op ed section. The [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Comandments]] state "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources" and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."
:Do you have anything worthwhile to add or are you just trolling? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:Do you have anything worthwhile to add or are you just trolling? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Hmm? Khersistianity is a religion from an online serial novel, if that's what you're referring to. On that note, troll is not a word to throw around lightly. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::Hmm? Khersistianity is a religion from an online serial novel, if that's what you're referring to. On that note, troll is not a word to throw around lightly. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 01:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)
:::So that would be a "yes." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:10, 24 January 2008 (EST)
::::It's a multiple choice question. The answer can't possibly be yes. Look, man. I've looked at your contributions, and you seem to be doing little than jumping on me since my ban ended. I'm just saying, it seems kind of weird. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)
== Thinly-veiled mockery? ==
There's no veil. Pastafarianism is an outright mockery of Christianity and is meant to be so.
:Not really. As the article says, Pastafarianism grew from a letter written to Kansas School Board by someone purporting to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all things, and looking forward to the day when both Intelligent Design and Pastafarian Creationism would be given equal time as evolution in the classroom (as Pastafarian Creationism had just as much actual evidence supporting it as Intelligent Design did). So it started more as a mockery of the idea that Intelligent Design could be taught as part of science, due to a lack of evidence backing it up, rather than an outright mockery of any religion, per se. Since then, it has somewhat grown, and some people now use it as a full-on parody of religion in general, and sometimes one particular religion. There are also some people who at least claim to be genuine Pastafarians, but, again, this may be more parody. Of course, this, plus the fact the original letter only refers to 'Intelligent Design', not 'Christianity', means the last sentence in the article is not entirely accurate, and it should be reworded to something like, 'Some people use a purported belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pastafarianism as a thinly veiled attempt to mock Christianity by reducing it to the level of a religion, like Pastafarianism, that someone made up on the spot.' This is, of course, assuming this website is continuing the claim by proponents of Intelligent Design that ID is not faith-based or anything to do with religion, either generally or specifically, but is, instead, based on the evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 20:49, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:: I've changed the line concerned to similar to what you suggested. The claim is not so much that ID has nothing to do with religion, but that it is science. That is, the two are not mutually exclusive. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:31, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Well, you're not like most IDers I have met or seen the views of - they try as much as possible to make the claim that ID has no connection with religion at all, and propose ID is merely an 'alternative scientific theory', based purely on scientific evidence. You, however, seemingly admit that there is a definite link between religion and ID. Good on you that you're not afraid to admit that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:39, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Er, more like "shrink-wrapped mockery", I'd say. :P --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 22:32, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:Last I checked, Philip was a [[young earth creationist]], not an ID advocate. Am I right, Philip?
:In any case, I'm an [[old earth creationist]], and I believe that ID makes scientific arguments that stand on their own - without any connection to religion. ID is simply the argument that life is too complex to have evolved naturally, and that it shows signs of having been designed.
:If you feel this is bad news for [[atheism]], so be it. But that doesn't make ID religious, any more than the theory of evolution is [[atheistic]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:45, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Well, that means that you are claiming that ID does, indeed, have nothing whatsoever to with religion, as I said the claim was, yet Philip came along and said that was not so much the claim as that science and religion are not mutually exclusive (which is, in fact, already perfectly apparant by such beliefs as Theistic Evolution). It's interesting to note, though, that such an statement remains in the article for such a long time without anyone noticing, especially given the recent efforts to distance ID from religion and creationism in order to attempt to get it taught in schools.
::Apologies to Philip - I should have been aware you were a YEC believer. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I am a YEC, not an ID advocate per se, although YECs have been using design arguments for longer than ID has been around as a movement.
I should clarify my comment above about the relationship between ID and religion. ID proponents do try and distance themselves from religion, and for good reason. First, ID is often described as being a new form of creationism. This ignores the fact that a significant number of ID advocates are not creationists, and a larger group are not YECs. Second, ID advocates deny that they are bringing God into the argument. They are correct in this, as they specifically avoid saying who the designer is.
The point is, for ''some'' (perhaps ''most'') ID advocates, religious views are their ''basis''. But that doesn't mean that ID is religious in nature. They are trying to do real science, regardless of their religious basis. Claiming that ID is religious in nature is exactly like me claiming that evolution is religious (atheistic) in nature (which I do claim). Yet when I claim that, I'm very quickly told that there is a distinction between the ''atheism'' of, for example, Richard Dawkins and the ''science'' of evolution. That is, despite Dawkins having an atheistic basis for his belief in evolution, evolution is still science. The same applies for ID: Just because some/many of its proponents are "religious" and see ID as affirming that, doesn't mean that ID can't be considered science.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
: Ah, but you see, that is where ID and evolution DO differ. For most IDers, as you say, ID is based in religion, and is based on the notion of the existence of some Designer - which is utterly unproven, and, at it's heart, is a religious belief, even if it does not name the Creator (though, to be frank, on most, if not all, ID literature I have seen, the word 'God' screams from between every line). Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence. To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God (or any other deity), so, until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists. Science and religion can co-exist, but they can't intermingle, except 'at the edges', so to speak (Theistic Evolution, for example, is one example of science and religion intermingling 'at the edges' - science explains the 'Evolution' part, and religion only really adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part) without compromising one or the other, or both. They are, in essence, two completely different ways of looking at the universe. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''...some Designer - which is utterly unproven...''". On the contrary, I've offered "proof" (whatever that means exactly) a number of times. It may not be the sort of "proof" that you'd like (or accept—but then would you accept anything?), but it's false to say that a Designer is ''utterly'' unproven. Not proven to your satisfaction would be more accurate.
:::If you add that 'to my satisfaction' is 'based on independant solid evidence', then I'll go along with that. All the 'proof' I have seen offered by anyone, including yourself, relies on circular reasoning - the evidence proves the Creator, and the existence of the Creator proves the evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''...at it's heart, is a religious belief...''": "religion" = to do with God (according to your definition, although that's not the only definition). Creator = God. So your sentence is really saying, "Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a belief about a Designer". Wow! Really?
:::Yep, I'll agree with that - Intelligent Design, at it's heart, is a BELIEF about a Designer. In other words, a belief lacking solid evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''Evolution is purely scientific - in other words, it is based on evidence, and only evidence''": So evolutionists keep claiming. And creationists keep refuting. Simply repeating the claim does not make it so.
::: No, creationists ''attempt'' to refute it. So far, I haven't actually seen any succeed. Yourself, for example, tried to refute it by making the claim that Darwin came up with evolution to 'do away with God', rather than because that's what his study of the evidence suggested. When asked for evidence, you came up with two citations - one quoting Michael Ruse, who appeared to make an easily disproven sweeping generalisation saying that all evolutionists regard evolution as a religion, but didn't actually reference Darwin at all, and another which was an article which claimed Steven Gould said something similar, but didn't even supply what he actually said. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''To date, no-one has come up with clear, solid evidence of the existence of God...''": Simply not true.
:::Really? What is this evidence then? I'd like to see it, bearing in mind that referring to the Bible means you're applying circular logic. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''...until someone does, evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists.''": In other words, until the existence of God is proved, evolutionists won't even consider the ''possibility'' of an alternative. That's called a closed mind. It is also unscientific.
:::Oh, no, it is perfectly possible for an evolutionist to consider it as a possibility - but then reject it due to lack of evidence. Which is the epitome of 'scientific'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::If an archaeologist finds a stone tool, he is able to determine that it was created by an intelligent designer (i.e. a human being), ''without having to have proof that the designer existed''! In fact, the mere ''existence'' of the intelligently-designed stone tool ''is itself evidence for the designer''!
:::Because such tools show clear evidence of being a tool, as opposed to just another rock, such as showing marks where it had been hit with rocks in order to shape it to an edge or point. To date, no-one has shown evidence of a similar nature in living organisms. As I say below, the nearest there has been to that is people claiming that life is too complex for evolution to explain it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::So your argument amounts to this: (1) I won't believe in a Designer/God until I have proof/evidence. (2) Here's proof/evidence: We can see that living things have been intelligently designed. (3) That proof/evidence is not acceptable because it requires that there be a Designer, which hasn't been proved. Tails you win; heads I lose.
:::Yep, because what you're doing there is applying circular logic - the evidence proves the existence of the Designer, but that self-same evidence is only really valid if you accept the notion that the Designer exists. What is needed to make ID scientific is solid evidence independant of this little circle. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''Science and religion can co-exist...''": Of course they can! Science [[Natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a Christian worldview!
:::Neat trick - the first thing that could really be called science was around significantly before Christianity was. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:: "''evolution will be based on the idea that no such deity exists''", "''Theistic Evolution,...adds 'but a deity kicked the whole thing off' to give it the 'Theistic' part''": That's one of the problems with Theistic evolution: It essentially says that God used a process that supposedly means that He wasn't involved.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:08, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, the whole basis of the 'Theistic' part of Theistic Evolution is, basically, that He (or someone like Him) '''was''' involved, so I'm not really seeing how that's actually a problem. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 23:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
== Exactly what does ID have to do with religion? ==
Are there any churches called "the Church of the Intelligent Designer?" Are there any religious books that teach the religious precepts of the ID religion? Are there any theological seminaries devoted to the ID religion? If ID is a religion, then is it exempt from being taxed? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:28, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:No, ID is not a religion. But it does have religious implications and it does have a lot of support from some religions (theistic ones) and a lot opposition from others (atheistic ones). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::The [[theory of evolution]] provides a justification for [[materialism]] and [[atheism]], while ID provides a justification for [[creationism]] and [[religion]]. There is no way to separate science from religious ideas (including "anti-religious" ideas).
::Liberals argue that since ID justifies religious belief it '''must be''' religious, but that makes no more sense than to argue that since the theory of evolution justifies atheism it '''must be''' anti-religious.
::Conservatives don't want censorship; they are not afraid of the [[marketplace of ideas]]. Only liberals want censorship. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Slander:_Liberal_Lies_About_the_American_Right&diff=prev&oldid=404454] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Actually, the argument is that ID purports to be based on science, but the only arguments based on evidence that backs up ID are also based on the preconception that there is a designer - which, at heart, is a religious belief, and remains completely unproven. Conversely, evolution does not definitively say 'God does not exist', it says, 'there is no solid evidence that God exists', which is a slight but important difference, and, to properly apply the scientific process, if you claim that life was designed by God, or some other creator, you either have to come up with independant, solid evidence of the existence of that creator, and/or come up with clear-cut, solid evidence of that creator designing life. To date, no-one has come up with either. The closest people have come is pointing out the complexity of life and claiming that it's too complex to have arose by evolution, and, indeed, many IDers generally submit evidence that, in their eyes, throws doubt on evolution, rather than positively supports ID. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Much of that was a repeat of your other post above, and which I've just answered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::::If buildings were found on Mars, would it be a religious beliefs to say they obviously had a designer? And evolution, as it is argued, has no opinion and will never have any opinion on God. Not directly, anyway. Finally, not all science is based on repeatable experiments. One can easily make scientific deductions purely from observation (e.g. astronomy), and that's exactly what ID does. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:05, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::The theory of evolution also has religious implications and also has a lot of support from religions. Try to argue that evolution has anything to do with religion, though, and you'll find yourself on the receiving end of endless mocking and ridicule. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 18:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
== FSM is nothing more than a reworking of the IPU ==
Atheists originally started mocking Christians using the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Their usage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - from symbols that mock the Jesus fish to phrases like "have you been touched by his noodly appendage" - shows that it is not as much a mocking of ID as it is Christianity. IDers don't have anything like the Jesus fish and they don't go around saying things like "have you been touched by blah blah blah." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:13, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
: Come now, the problem with that argument is that you are assuming that the atheists will be logical and fair. You're right, it's mocking Christianity, but that's not because it was conceived to mock Christianity rather than ID, but simply because those atheists consider ID to be Christianity masquerading as science. Of course evolution is not atheism masquerading as science, dear no; you must remember to keep the beliefs of the evolutionists separate to their science. But with ID, their beliefs and motives can't be separated from the theory. Didn't you know that? <sarcasm off/> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
== unprotect ==
Could we try unprotecting this again? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:00, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
: Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:01, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:59, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
== More content ==
My last revision was removed. Maybe because of my "invalid" username, maybe for some other reason. Any objections to me adding it back? I though i'd ask first. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 21:45, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Ok, there being no objections, I'm going to go ahead and re-add the portion that was deleted. If anyone can come up with a reason to revert it, again, then let me know. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 22:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
: I see that three different edits have recently been made by three different editors, and all three have been reverted ''without explanation'', despite none of them being vandalism or obviously inappropriate.
: As for ShawnJ's edit, my view is that the added information is not particularly relevant. I'd like to see some justification for it being in the article.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:23, 4 December 2008 (EST)
:: My whole point of adding that info is that this article seems to focus more on the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not on what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. When explaining a fictional creature, noting it's powers and abilities is relevant. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::: You've done little more than simply restate the claim: Simply claiming that "noting it's powers an abilities is relevant" is not explaining ''why'' they are relevant. They are not relevant simply because you say they are. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:40, 16 December 2008 (EST)
:::: They are relevant because they contribute to the definition of what the Flying Spaghetti monster is, and what it can fictionally do. Just like noting in the article about Spider-man that he has the proportionate strength and agility of a spider and can stick to walls. Fictional characters are often defined by their powers.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:34, 19 December 2008 (EST)
::::: This article is not so much about the fictional character, but about the attempt to mock Christianity. The article already says that it is a parody, clearly implying that it is a parody of God, and therefore one would expect that it has the powers of God. Of the list of powers and abilities that the article currently shows, the only one that doesn't apply to God is the last one, that of deception. I concede that that last one deserves a mention, but think that the others could be covered by a simply statement, rather than by a list in its own section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I guess that's where we differ then, I want to fill out this article with more information about the fictional character. A parody does not necessarily imply the same powers and abilities though. I'd point to the movie The Life of Brian for example. I concede that, with the exception of the last point, the others can be covered by a blanket statement of "Has all the powers of God". [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:08, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I would like to see others' opinions on how much we include (and rationale for those opinions). Spiderman, to take your example, is interesting in his own right. The FSM is interesting not in its own right, but as a parody of the Creator. Insofar as its powers are relevant to that parody, they deserve a mention, but I'm still not convinced that they need much discussion otherwise. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:22, 15 January 2009 (EST)
==PJR and Fact tags==
The FSM's main purpose is to poke fun at the idea of teaching a religious creation story in a science classroom. It can be taken as a jab at any religious dogma, but it's primary use is more or less indisputable.
Would Conservapedia's [[Islam]] article count as a valid source? RodWeathers recently blocked a user for suggesting that [[Intelligent Design]] was only an accepted belief of Muslims and Christians, rather than being the only belief. If the Conservapedia article is correct and Islam subscribes entirely to Intelligent Design and does not recognize evolutionary theory at all. It would follow that something that pokes fun at a belief in ID and by extension, Christianity, would also be mocking other religions that prescribe to the same belief. I can't speak for Judaism however so I will remove that one if you like. If I am incorrect in my reasoning, or if the CP article on Islam is incorrect in it's statement, let me know and I'll gladly fix them. --[[User:TuckerM|TuckerM]] 14:07, 13 December 2008 (EST)
: To be precise (pedantic?), RodWeathers didn't do what you say. That is, the article talks about Christian''ity'' and ''Islam'', not Christian''s'' and ''Muslims''. I agree that many Christians and Muslims—the ''people''—accept evolution; but whether or not Christianity and Islam—the ''religions'', or ''sets of beliefs''–accept evolution may be another matter.
: But that's a bit beside the point. My Fact tag and hidden comment were not querying whether the FSM ''can be'' applied to Islam and Judaism, but whether the FSM is "an attempt to mock" those two along with Christianity. Muslims and Jews have not, ''for the most part'' (i.e. thare are exceptions) been involved with ID (nor creationism). Those involved prominently have been Christians, agnostics (e.g. Michael Denton), and at least one member of the Unification church (Wells); I'm not sure that any (religious) Jews or Muslims have been that involved.
: ID is seen by its critics as a form of creationism (ignoring the pertinent differences), and creationism also has been particularly a ''Christian'' matter, although again that's not to deny that there has been ''some'' support from Muslims and Jews.
: To in summary, to say that the FSM is "an attempt to mock" Christianity ''and Islam and Judaism'' as though they were all equally targeted is, I believe, inaccurate.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)
== Neutrality ==
I'm suprised how unbiased this article is. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 15:06, 17 February 2013 (EST)
:Why surprised? Isn't unbiased information exactly what one would expect to read in a trustworthy encyclopedia? [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 16:23, 17 February 2013 (EST)
::Sure it's unbiased... [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 16:34, 24 February 2013 (EST)