Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

Somebody screwed up the references.

Mockery and Pastafarianism?

The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".

I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --Sid 3050 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It's not the designation of themselves as Pastafarians but their establishment of FSM as a deity which is the mockery. Anyway, it's a good parody and I always get a laugh out of it. --Ed Poor 12:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, those are my thoughts, too. Just found those sentences next to each other a tad confusing. Thanks for verifying/clarifying. --Sid 3050 12:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The purpose of this ruse of a vulgar depiction is the same one used in Germany from 1933 to 1945 against certain religious groups. There are still present today those who get a laugh or two from those depictions. The historic use of these types should therefore be presented in their appropriate historic context. Their associations should be noted to allow such distinctions to be presented. You can still go to places where this kind of stereotyping isn't such a light hearted poke in the ribs. Savvy?--Roopilots6 12:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Food for thought

Finally a theory I can sink my teeth into. I can't stomach much of the tripe that evolutionists bring to the table.

• If naturalistic laws do not explain life's origin, then life must have been created. This theory is called intelligent design. (back cover of Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design)

This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --Ed Poor 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole problem with this ID discussion is that both attackers and defenders of ID don't see the difference between the scientific and the religious domain. The scientific domain describes WHAT happens, and here the only theory available is evolution. The religious domain however, describes WHY it happens, and here everybody should be free to find an explanation. Christians will say God coordinates the whole process, while atheists will say it is just a natural process, where everything happens by accident and without a deeper meaning.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carcoke (talk)

Your analysis is incomplete. The Bible does indeed say what happened, and in what order. It even says when it happened. Oh, sure, estimates of the "when" vary, with a range of about 320 years (215 years for the Sojourn in Egypt, 60 years for the birth of Abraham, and 45 years for the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern). But you can't get around this simple fact: that the Bible contains back-to-back narratives of human history that span the entire time from creation to the Crucifixion and about thirty years after that. It is the only single source that can make this claim (although The Annals of the World reviews history from multiple sources to cover the same period).

Now the distinction you draw is all very well. But when the Bible does make a statement on the what and even the when as well as the why, you have to deal with it.--TerryH^Talk 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

So what will you do when the Bible says one thing, and the Koran, Talmud or another religious scripture tells another thing. You may believe that the Bible is right, but you can't tell other people that they have to deal with it. Otherwise you say that the Bible (and with it Christianity) is superior to other religions, which seems a very dangerous statement to me.

See Debate topics. --Ed Poor 06:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Dangerous? If you lived in Nazis Germany between 1933 - 1945, or Russia, China, Cuba, ...etc. I'm currently sitting in a country where freedom of religion and speech still apply. Where anybody can say their religion is superior to every other. Liberty and freedom to say and believe what your conscience believes. Maybe some believe that is dangerous. Is that what you mean by being very dangerous?--Roopilots6 12:44, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The rational for the Flying Spagetti Monster is as follows: There is equal evidence for all gods and supernatural beleifs, therefore the likelihood of the spagetti monster is equal to that of any God. If you ridicule the belief in the spagetti monster then you have to apply the same ridicule to all other religous beleifs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3 (talk)

That might be the rationale, but that rationale depends on the presumption that there is "equal evidence for all gods and supernatural beleifs(sic)". As a Christian, I totally reject that presumption, therefore if I do ridicule belief in the spaghetti monster, it does not follow that I have to apply the same ridicule to other beliefs. Philip J. Rayment 07:20, 23 January 2008 (EST)

But the evidence that Christianity and other theistic religions touts is the complexity of design. As a (pseudo) Theistic religion, the Spagetti monster can inherit the same evidence. I have never heard any evidence of one religion being true over another. One can argue from evidence that there is a creator, but which creator you happen to choose from is a matter of faith. This is why the spagetti monster can be said to be as plausable as Allah, Yawheh or the great JuJu under the sea. Mark Hayward (14:34), 23 January 2008 (GMT)

Complexity of design is one area of evidence that Christianity uses; it is not the sum total of evidence. Before you set about critiquing religions that you know next to nothing about, it's a good idea to learn about the topic that you are critiquing; else all you achieve is displaying your ignorance. Philip J. Rayment 20:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Care to present any? It is not enough for you to simply assert it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3 (talk)

Why not? That's all you did. And no, I don't particularly care to present any. Not for somebody who criticises something that he knows next to nothing about. Philip J. Rayment 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I have read the bible cover to cover, and most of the Koran. I am not trying to undermine your belief, simply to understand it. I recieve the same reaction from the faithful everytime. They can talk for hours about why there must be a creator, but are stubbornly silent when asked why they have chosen their particular God out of thousands.

There is a great deal of evidence to support the "claims" of Christianity, as well as a 2000 year history, as opposed to a recently made up mockery of religion. It's not equivalent.RobertK 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Longevity is not evidence. There are older beleifs and religions than christianity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3 (talk)

That depends on how you look at it, but it is evidence of a sort. See here. Philip J. Rayment 09:00, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Im sorry but that website is a load of waffle. The success of any religion is not a testament to its truth, nor is it a sign of divine favour. If anything religion spreads where there is lack of or poor education and retreats where confronted with it. Hence christianity and islam are on the rise in Africa and latin america, wheras it is in decline in America, Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan and New Zealand.

FSM and ID criticism

Critiques of Intelligent Design should be discussed at Talk:Intelligent design, and they should be aimed at improving the article. --Ed Poor 06:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

A tangle of pasta

ID opponents argue that Intelligent Design claims to explain the origin of life, and contrast this "claim" with Pastafarians' nonsensical explanations of Global Warming, gravity and UFOs.

• Which opponents have argued this?

Self-professed believers have called themselves "Pastafarians" (reference to FSM's "noodly appendages").

• Very funny, but hardly encyclopediic.

FSM is used by atheists, such as Richard Dawkins [1], as a modern version of Russell's teapot.

• This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.

A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.

• 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.

• Too obvious for words.

I explained what's wrong with each thing I cut, using bullet points. --Ed Poor 10:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes,there really is a book. It is both an expansion of the parody and a critiqque of Intelligent design.Smedricksman24 02:46, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Deceit

Could someone explain how this category demarcation is appropriate? I can grant you the "liberal" part (though I personally think that there's nothing actually liberal about it), but there just is no evidence of deceit. Using the word deceit implies that they are hiding their motives; they say they are a parody religion and they say precisely what their motives are. Maybe a link to the site would help, so you can see for yourself? HelpJazz 10:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe that they are deceitful because they are really atheists and rather than saying they want God out of the classroom, they make this ridiculous parody that mocks religion and God. That seems like deceit to me --Konservativekanadian 12:41, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

They are not all Athiests. The Spagetti monster can be used to argue for Deism, Atheism and Agnostisicm.

It is an anti-dogmatic argument.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcai9mh3 (talk)

It was designed to mock creationism, not dogmatism. Philip J. Rayment 20:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It was designed to mock beleif in particular gods, not specifically creationism. My point is that it does not ridicule beleif in a creator, just what non-theists consider 'man-made' religions. Therefore, it is not inherintly atheist.

It's fine if you believe it, but this is an encyclopedia not an op ed section. The Comandments state "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources" and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."

If we take a look at the official site, we find the following statement:

Q: Are you an atheist / heathen / what?

A: I don’t have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach Creationism in school, fine, but don’t teach it in a science classroom...."

So if you want to make the claim that he is flat out lying, you need some way to back that up, other than just a gut instinct. HelpJazz 13:10, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Seems more like liberal satire to me. A lot of liberals use satire and snark to make conservatives sound dumb. In fact, you might want to create a new category, "liberal slander," or something like that, and this article might be better suited for that then deceit.-Darius 13:16, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Satire, yes. The creator of the "religion" (and it's "followers") openly admit that Pastafarianism is supposed to be satire. I still don't think anything more serious (such as deceit or slander) has been properly shown, however. HelpJazz 16:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

I think it's more liberal hypocrisy than liberal deceit. - Borofkin2 21:53, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

How is it hypocritical? Or deceitful, for that matter? Barikada 20:45, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. The user has been blocked for five years. Philip J. Rayment 00:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

On a related note, may I ask why my edit removing the words "thinly veiled attempt" was reverted? I feel that the statement as it stands now implies that Pastafarians are hoping to deceive somebody about their intentions. They're not. To say that it is a "thinly veiled attempt" at mockery is like saying that calling someone a "dumb stupid-face" is a "thinly veiled attempt" at insult. The phrase is unnecessary and inaccurate. Rstayor 14:52, 9 November 2007 (EDT)

This doesn't strike me as a mockery of the Christian religion, more of a counter-point to Intelligent Design. Teach the controversy, teach ID, evolution, and Pastafarianism! Barikada 19:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I didn't know straw man arguments were encyclopedic

Seriously, why is this even here? That Dawkins uses it and that there's a book about it hardly makes it notable. Dawkins is not the atheist god (though they treat him that way, ironically enough) and his word is not truth, and any idget can get a book published by some no-name company and sold on Amazon.com (e.g. William Rivers Pitt). That being said, I could see this being briefly mentioned in the Intelligent Design article in a list of the many straw man arguments atheists/evolutionists use against ID, but it really doesn't deserve its own article. Jinxmchue 10:30, 5 December 2007 (EST)

We've got an article on dazzle painting but not one on camouflage, I doubt notability is a big concern. Aside from that, it's here because it's useful for debates. Barikada 19:26, 16 January 2008 (EST)

Fictional Religion?

Does not make sense. It implies the religion exists only in fiction, reducing our glorious belief system to the level of, say, Khersistianity. Barikada 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Do you have anything worthwhile to add or are you just trolling? Jinxmchue 23:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Hmm? Khersistianity is a religion from an online serial novel, if that's what you're referring to. On that note, troll is not a word to throw around lightly. Barikada 01:24, 24 January 2008 (EST)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm

“Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views