79
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: − + − + Line 143:
Line 143: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Line 148:
Line 186: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster (view source)
Revision as of 21:34, February 24, 2013
, 21:34, February 24, 2013→Neutrality
*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.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
[[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? ==
== 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)
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)
: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)