Atheist Dogma Flowchart

So the Flying Spaghetti Monster (I love saying (or typing) that) is a synonym for (modern) agnosticism?

Wait…..what?

I think I’ve got this figured out.

If you don’t believe in God or the FSM, you’re an atheist.
If you believe in God but not the FSM, you’re not an atheist.
If you believe in God AND the FSM, you….might….be an.. atheist…?

No, sorry, I still don’t get it.

(Note: apparently it’s not possible to believe in the FSM if you don’t first believe in God. I wasn’t aware of this)

I gather that chasing your tail to pin a label on your ass passes for dogma in some circles.

Hi Mriana,
I think I can explain the chart. Spagettifundies or logicians please forgive and correct me if I am wrong. Those who understand the chart, skip this because it will be boring.

The initial question “Am I an atheist?” leads to the decision question in the diamond “God?” meaning “Do I believe in God?” if your answer is no, indicated by the “No” in the arrow coming from the bottom of that decision question diamond then you come to the conclusion oval “Yes” meaning Yes, I am an atheist.”

If your answer to the decision question “Do I believe in God” is yes then you follow the arrow to the right through your answer “Yes” to the decision question “Spaghetti Monster?” diamond.

Here’s where it gets complicated:

“Spaghetti Monster?” is short for “Do I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?” If your answer is no then you follow your “No” answer in the arrow leaving to the right to the conclusion oval “No” meaning “No, I am not an atheist.” The logic here is that you believe in God but not the Spaghetti Monster so you are not an atheist.

Now the really complicated part:

If your answer to the question “Do I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?” is yes, there are several possible implications that lead to the conclusion oval “Maybe” which is short for “Maybe I am an atheist or maybe I am not”

(To Billy: that “Maybe” is not the same kind of “Maybe from an agnostic viewpoint. The flowchart actually is not complete. it needs more decision diamonds coming from that “Yes” answer, but then it wouldn’t be as funny as it is.)

Here is a list of the possible implications of answering yes to the FSM? question:

1. Yes, you believe both in God and the FSM so no, you are not an atheist.

2. Yes, you “believe” in the FSM as the most wonderfully ridiculous parody of a deity yet devised by man but not the God of traditional theistic systems. To you FSM is not really a theo so yes, you are an atheist.

3. Yes, you are one of the very rare screwballs who actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I mean really think He is here, touching lucky souls with His noodly appendages, etc. but you don’t believe in Abraham’s God, and so thinking of the FSM as a true theo means no, you are not an atheist. You probably also believe that Sasquatch rides Nessie through the bottom of Loch Ness into the hollow earth.

I can’t believe I spent all this time writing this.

Richard.

Even if you were to add in all those extra questions, there’s still a problem…. that you could answer “Yes” to the first question (essentially, as you pointed out “Do you believe in God?”) and yet still be an atheist if you answer yes to the question “Do you believe in the FSM?”.

I’m fairly certain that the two states “believing in God” and “being an atheist” are mutually incompatible!

Sorry, I’m taking this far too seriously. It is just a bit of fun….isn’t it?

Sorry, I’m taking this far too seriously. It is just a bit of fun….isn’t it?

Maybe I am too, artificialhabitat, because I am adding a whole bunch of questions too. 😕 Even Spong, Culpitt, and Freeman are considered atheists by the religious extremists too because they do not believe in the traditional god of religion, but rather an emotional or rather a non-theistic concept that is not anthropomorphic or metaphysical.

Still, perhaps it could be said that if we all were to distance ourselves from the term ‘atheist’ and adopt the term ‘non-theist’ within a few years it would have all the same connotations that ‘atheist’ has and the same problem that there would be ‘non-theists’ that you didn’t like. If you see my point. I tend to think it’s more useful for us to stick with ‘atheist’ – and define it our way.

This is true or that is I see your point, but there is another advantage to using non-theist in the Bible Belt too. For some reason, even though the religious extremist see non-theists as atheist, which they are, there seems to be this spectrum of stereotypes- one is better than the other, but only by degree, so to speak, in the religious extremists opinions. They seem to say, OK so you accept love and compassion, but that’s not Christian. In such respect the hateful words end up coming from both extremes- the extreme atheists and the religious extremists. After a while, it sometimes seems like there is a second catagory of non-theists, which IMO is not a good thing. By the same token, you see some atheists who make catagories of theism, in which they try to lump deists in with theists. Deists don’t consider themselves theists. So what do you do? I think this is another case where the lines get blurred, but it’s not theists and atheists who necessarily blur them, but society as a whole. Again there seems to be a broad spectrum on both sides.

Spong and Cupitt call themselves non-theists, but some religious people call them atheists and some atheists shove them over to the theist side because of their “god talk” with the use of love and compassion. Where do we draw the lines? It’s hard to say, IMO. I accept Spong and Cupitt as non-theist because they do not have a metaphysical, anthropomorphic Zeus-like deity and they will tell you they do not believe in a Zeus-like deity and Cupitt has gone as far as to say love is God, but attributes no supernatural qualities to it- only human qualities that comes from the human, not some Zeus qualities. Spong will talk a good talk of Christ, but bottom line he believes we should strive to be all we can be, live life fully, and love wastefully, but does not believe in any supernatural being. They are both pushed back an forth by individual personal definitions by theists and non-theists alike, yet they say they are non-theists.

Of course they are non-theists if they do not believe in any supernatural deity nor in a historical Jesus, at least not the one portrayed in the Bible, yet they are still Christian Humanists, although some Christians would beg to differ and sometimes very strongly. So where is the line drawn with all this push back and forth of some “non-theists”?

By the same token, you see some atheists who make catagories of theism, in which they try to lump deists in with theists. Deists don’t consider themselves theists. So what do you do? I think this is another case where the lines get blurred, but it’s not theists and atheists who necessarily blur them, but society as a whole. Again there seems to be a broad spectrum on both sides.

Hmmm. I don’t think I’ve thought of it that way before. I guess from a pedantic standpoint ‘atheist’ (a-theism: without theism) would mean the same as ‘non-theist’ and since deists aren’t theists, then I guess that makes them atheists (I imagine they wouldn’t like that)! 🙂 I also imagine many atheists wouldn’t like to be lumped in with the deists (me probably included!). Do we need another word – for people who aren’t deists OR theists?!? (I’m not seriously suggesting that as a practical option).

Back to the flowchart:

What do we mean by “God” when we say we do or do not believe in it?

Mriana is bringing up possible meanings that could squeak an atheist through the “Yes” answer, such as using the word “God” as a shorthand or code for a human emotion, or a principle of ethics/morals, or some kind of vague force or principle infusing the universe, in short something other than a distinct entity with a mind that is somehow separate from our minds.

That would work, as far as the flow chart is concerned!

I always get a little….. frutstrated, perhaps, when people seriously start talking about ‘God’ in that sense – to me the word implies some kind of distinct entity, and that’s certainly how most people, religious or otherwise, use it. Strikes me as somewhat unimaginative – sort of “I’m trying to get across this sense of something pervasive in the Universe but I can’t think of the right words so I’ll call it God”. Well that word’s taken, and it seems, if anything, tactically unfortunate when people use it like that. How many times are we going to have to hear about how Einstein believed in ‘God’?

creative and interesting amusement for a Sunday morning.

Speak for yourself! It’s almost time for bed over here. It’ll be Monday soon…..boo!

Yeah the use of the word “God” for un-Zeusy things is annoying and sometimes I wonder if it’s about people having trouble letting go of the word itself.

I’ve let go of it, but you are right, there are people who still use God to mean un-Zeusy things. I’ve often wonder why they can’t call a spade a spade too. There is the possibilty they are afraid of something or others- that’s crossed my mind too.

All that theist, deist, atheist, non-theist stuff can get to be crazy making too. To avoid having to coin “atheist/adeist” or all the possible variants of that I was going to suggest “skeptic” but even that now has its own confusion between a category of specifically non-religious folks calling themselves skeptics and folks who simply withhold belief about all sorts of things until they get adequate evidence. So the “movement” or “group” of “skeptics” gets confused with the principle of skepticism.

How about just Freethinkers? We are all freethinkers in our own right, rather we are atheists, non-theist, Humanists, Skeptics, etc.

I thought the flowchart was funny (& was meant to be).

I can’t believe there was so much discussion about it!

Seems like alot of people here have alot of time on their hands on Sundays 😉