Atheist on God

Is there a fallacy being committed when Richard Dawkins is using an argument wherein he’s comparing God, that being of course the God of the Bible, to a Flying Spaghetti Monster? 

You cannot derive a fallacy without more context here. One can compare any two things - there is no fallacy there.  Fallacies here depend on how the two things are being compared.

OK: God is like the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that both are invisible and cannot be detected.

Fallacious: Believing in God is just as ridiculous as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (One can argue false equivalence )

Yes, there is a fallacy involved when Richard Dawkins compares the God of the Bible to a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it primarily falls under the category of a "Reductio ad Absurdum" argument. This is a legitimate form of argument when used correctly, but it can border on or include elements of the following fallacies or reasoning issues:

1. **Straw Man Fallacy**: This occurs when someone misrepresents an opponent's position to make it easier to attack. By comparing the deeply-rooted religious concept of God to an invented, whimsical entity like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Dawkins may be oversimplifying and distorting the theistic view for the sake of argument, thereby not addressing the actual complexities and nuances of belief in God.

2. **Appeal to Ridicule (Ad Absurdum)**: This is a specific type of Straw Man that involves mocking or trivializing the opposing view to undermine its credibility. By equating God with a seemingly absurd and fictional creature, Dawkins implicitly ridicules the concept of God, which might not tackle the substantive arguments for theism.

3. **False Equivalence**: This occurs when two things that are not alike are compared as if they are equivalent. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody, intended to satirize certain arguments for God's existence, particularly the argument from design. However, likening it directly to God omits the context, historical influence, and philosophical arguments that underpin belief in a deity, making it an inaccurate and misleading comparison.

4. **Reductionism**: This involves reducing a complex issue to overly simplistic terms. The concept of God encompasses layers of theological, philosophical, and cultural dimensions. Comparing it to a notion specifically designed to be absurd dismisses these complexities and reduces the concept to something far simpler than it actually is.

In sum, while Dawkins' comparison may serve to highlight how he perceives the arbitrariness of certain theistic claims, it does so by employing several logical shortcuts and fallacies. A more robust critique of theism would involve engaging with its arguments directly rather than relying on ridicule or oversimplified analogies.

No. The FSM is a spoof on Russell’s Flying Tea Pot and has been around for a while. It is not original to Dawkins, but a parody religion similar to the hilarious Church of the SubGenius.

It is a popular and probably a little stale meme and overused by now. However the word meme to connote viral ideologies is original to Dawkins, if memory serves. 

I suppose it could be classified as a weak analogy similar to other gimmicky comparisons atheists use to poke fun at fundamentalist beliefs and Christian proselytizing.

I have heard Dawkins say this, and one must keep all statements in context. No fallacy was involved because the statement was meant as a humorous metaphor. Let me restate in a less humorous manner what Dawkins said: There is no more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which is true. I add that when people discuss the Flying Spaghetti Monster (the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Pastafarianism), they can define what it is. That is not true for the Biblical God. I have never seen an intelligible definition of the Biblical God.