Then there is a post like Zig with his spaghetti monster sarcasm.
It is everything but a sarcasm (and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is everything but mine):
"Because of its popularity and exposure, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell’s teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them. "
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster)This movement tries to illustrate the nonsense of treating religious beliefs and rational facts on the same level. That is why it seemed relevant to me in this particular discussion.
And your answer shows how much the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an appropriate parable in the present case…
I’m well aware what it is. And your post was clearly sarcastic (thus why I referred to your sarcasm). If you/those who purport to believe in the fsm were actually sincere, then the comparison would make sense. That of course would undermine your intended point.
As for debating religion as if it were scientific fact, I think it is conceded early and often by religious folk that that is wrongheaded. So at the end of the day, the fsm proves nothing.