Originally posted by Red Night
In an abstract way the invention of the entity of disbelief is a creation. The non-entity becomes as important for the non-believer as an entity is to the believer.
Uhm... hmm... I hate to say it so bluntly, but there's nothing abstract about it, the invention of the entity of disbelief is a creation, that's kind of what "invent" means. The creation is, as pointed out a satirical look at religion, an application of the same flawed justification being brought to its natural conclusion. As Dan Dennett put it I believe, why can someone invent an entity using the exact same philosophical reasoning and have it cast out as an obvious "fake" while any other religion, remember, applying the exact same reasoning, is granted literally a sacred place in society?
Where is the demarcation that the religious use to differentiate between the two? Apart from age, which has no effect on the rationality or philsophical basis for a belief, what is different between the FSM and a god? Nothing other than the fact that those in the curch of the FSM don't take themselves as seriously as the religious. This too has no effect on the rationale or the philosophical basis.
And that last sentence is the most crucial... the only difference between the two is that the church of the FSM fully accepts and indeed enjoys its members knowledge that its all a big joke.
The only difference is the knowledge that its a joke. Other religions should be aware of the hilarity of their situation, but are not, to everyones disadvantage.