Real Pastafarians

The place for general discussion about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and most things related to Him.

Moderator: All Things Mods

User avatar
Almighty Doer of Stuff
Brewmeister
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Real Pastafarians

Postby Almighty Doer of Stuff » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:13 am

A statement I often see here is, "You're not a real Pastafarian if you really believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

So let's say a person chooses FSMism as their honest-to-goodness religious faith. If that makes them not a real Pastafarian, what does it make them? I imagine the first reaction of many people would be "That would make them crazy!" However, an important point of FSMism is that it is just as reasonable as any other religion, is it not? If it were not, the satire would fall flat.

So again, the question is, "If a person who truly believes in the FSM cannot be a true Pastafarian, what would such a person be?"

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:23 am

A believer in the FSM?

That, or a nutcase, methinks.
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin

User avatar
Almighty Doer of Stuff
Brewmeister
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Postby Almighty Doer of Stuff » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:29 am

Out of curiousity, where's the source of the idea that real Pastafarians don't believe in the FSM?

User avatar
~NoodleDemon~
Brewmeister
Posts: 1809
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:10 am
Location: Southern NJ.
Contact:

Postby ~NoodleDemon~ » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:35 am

I dunno...

That's almost as stupid as fundie - talk.
I hope you're on the recieving end of an improbability equation wherein something happens to you that's as unlikely as Rob Schneider winning a best actor Oscar on the same day Michael Jackson single handedly captures Osama Bin Laden. ~ Rainswept

O.K. Everything else is just stuff you do while you are waiting to have sex. Sin. WoE. ~ Warlord of Elephants

Image Image Image

User avatar
Sergio
Maccheroncelli Missionary
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 10:16 pm
Location: Spaghetti Land - For real !

Re: Real Pastafarians

Postby Sergio » Mon Nov 26, 2007 5:05 pm

Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:A statement I often see here is, "You're not a real Pastafarian if you really believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

So let's say a person chooses FSMism as their honest-to-goodness religious faith. If that makes them not a real Pastafarian, what does it make them? I imagine the first reaction of many people would be "That would make them crazy!" However, an important point of FSMism is that it is just as reasonable as any other religion, is it not? If it were not, the satire would fall flat.

So again, the question is, "If a person who truly believes in the FSM cannot be a true Pastafarian, what would such a person be?"
I hope it's true because I already quit my job, left my home and left behind all my friends to became a real Pastafarian.




:wink:

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Mon Nov 26, 2007 8:35 pm

Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:Out of curiousity, where's the source of the idea that real Pastafarians don't believe in the FSM?


Because in order to embrace the spirit of the FSM, one must be able to claim a devotion to the FSM and demand that Pastafarian teachings be taught in the classroom, while not actually holding that which one states one believes to be true. This two-faced behavior produces an evident façade that one's opponent nevertheless cannot argue, being another belief system, albeit fabricated, that proposes historical events and statistical correlations opposite the opponent's.
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin

User avatar
ken worley
King of the Pervs
Posts: 3250
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: Fortress of Squalitude

Postby ken worley » Mon Nov 26, 2007 9:05 pm

SPLITTER!!!
Image

User avatar
black bart
Resident Weevil
Posts: 24540
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 am
Location: London

Re: Real Pastafarians

Postby black bart » Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:23 pm

Sergio wrote:
Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:A statement I often see here is, "You're not a real Pastafarian if you really believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

So let's say a person chooses FSMism as their honest-to-goodness religious faith. If that makes them not a real Pastafarian, what does it make them? I imagine the first reaction of many people would be "That would make them crazy!" However, an important point of FSMism is that it is just as reasonable as any other religion, is it not? If it were not, the satire would fall flat.

So again, the question is, "If a person who truly believes in the FSM cannot be a true Pastafarian, what would such a person be?"
I hope it's true because I already quit my job, left my home and left behind all my friends to became a real Pastafarian.




:wink:



Oh dear, oh dear...you only need to do that to become a Jehovas Witness...quick call them up and ask if they'll have you back.
The smoke wafted gently in the breeze across the poop deck and all seemed right in the world.

User avatar
Robbobrob
Stele Second Mate
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:24 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Postby Robbobrob » Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:01 pm

As soon as I see the word "real" in front of any religious group's name, I run......there is no such thing as real anything. It is all in our minds.

Now, to the point of the question....Pastafarian is just the costume we prefer to wear, but it is not who we are.

If I dress as Chewbacca, it does not make me a Wookie, with Wookie strength or Wookie blood. But I can run around and give the performance of my life.

I liken what we do to what Andy Kaufman used to do. He would get so deep into character, he would not let people in on the joke. People took him serious, not realizing he was poking fun at the very things he was touting in his act.

And that is what a Real Pastafarian (tm) does. Holds a realistic looking mirror up, as the court jesters used to, to those who seek to mix spiritual things with scientific things, parodying to the point of looking exactly the same, but knowing that it is all for the joke.

I do fear many people will not see the difference, because it is subtle at times. And we will get people thinking the outer layer of parody is the REAL thing, and not realize the layers underneath.

Course, I think that is exactly the SAME propblem all religions face, that Literalists destroy the subtle beauty of the idea, and only see the exterior, most outer layer of the religion (and take that as the whole TRUTH).
Mad Rob Rackham, Pirate for Humanity.

"God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board."

- Mark Twain.

User avatar
Hippie Pirate
Lumache Lieutenant
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:04 pm
Location: Drury University

Postby Hippie Pirate » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:04 am

Robbobrob wrote:As soon as I see the word "real" in front of any religious group's name, I run......there is no such thing as real anything. It is all in our minds.

Now, to the point of the question....Pastafarian is just the costume we prefer to wear, but it is not who we are.

If I dress as Chewbacca, it does not make me a Wookie, with Wookie strength or Wookie blood. But I can run around and give the performance of my life.

I liken what we do to what Andy Kaufman used to do. He would get so deep into character, he would not let people in on the joke. People took him serious, not realizing he was poking fun at the very things he was touting in his act.

And that is what a Real Pastafarian (tm) does. Holds a realistic looking mirror up, as the court jesters used to, to those who seek to mix spiritual things with scientific things, parodying to the point of looking exactly the same, but knowing that it is all for the joke.

I do fear many people will not see the difference, because it is subtle at times. And we will get people thinking the outer layer of parody is the REAL thing, and not realize the layers underneath.

Course, I think that is exactly the SAME propblem all religions face, that Literalists destroy the subtle beauty of the idea, and only see the exterior, most outer layer of the religion (and take that as the whole TRUTH).


RAmen
Reducing global warming since 1989.

Rev Points at the moment = 4

User avatar
lordpunkmonk
Mystic of Meatball
Posts: 2415
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:14 am
Location: outside your window
Contact:

Postby lordpunkmonk » Tue Nov 27, 2007 4:35 am

to be pastafarian you cant believe in FSM because pastafarians are anti ID and to answer your question, mentaly certifiable.
if still confused go to Index>All things FSM>Basic meaning of FSM
there is a pretty good explanation of FSMism there
--LPM lord of the apocalypse
"The man with a clear conscience probably has a poor memory." --Lawrence J. Peter
111111111 x 111111111 = 12345678987654321

User avatar
Almighty Doer of Stuff
Brewmeister
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Postby Almighty Doer of Stuff » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:21 am

EarthRise wrote:
Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:Out of curiousity, where's the source of the idea that real Pastafarians don't believe in the FSM?


Because in order to embrace the spirit of the FSM, one must be able to claim a devotion to the FSM and demand that Pastafarian teachings be taught in the classroom, while not actually holding that which one states one believes to be true. This two-faced behavior produces an evident façade that one's opponent nevertheless cannot argue, being another belief system, albeit fabricated, that proposes historical events and statistical correlations opposite the opponent's.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that a Pastafarian would not argue simply that ID by FSM should be taught in classrooms, but rather that, if we're going to teach Christian ID in science classrooms, then we should teach FSM ID alongside it.

As a starting point, current scientific understanding provides absolutely no explanation as to why the universe as we know it is here. Science has revealed that the universe as we know it (also known as spacetime) began at the Big Bang. We don't know why the Big Bang happened. We don't know what exists outside of spacetime. We know that there is no "before the Big Bang" in our spacetime, but we don't know whether there are other "time dimensions" during which there could have been such a concept. There are people with the idea that there are cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, but there is no evidence for it, and we have no real understanding of what it would mean anyway because time as we know it literally began at the Big Bang. This is something we do have evidence for, and we have Prof. Hawking to thank for showing it to us. So while we have a pretty good system for determining how spacetime works (called "science"), we do not have a system for determining what, if anything, does or does not exist beyond spacetime.

This leaves open many possibilities, none of which are any more or less reasonable than the others. This is an area for which science has given no positive or negative answers, but where religious thought is easily able to dwell upon. This is not to say that all religions existing among humans even consider the lofty science that is quantum physics; in fact, most of them long predate our knowledge of it. Some of these older religions have their tenets set in stone, so to speak, and, when faced with new scientific theories, will simply point at their tenets and say "The tenets say something that's incompatible with that theory, so the theory must be wrong." However, some, such as Buddhism, are able to logically coexist with science. Furthermore, one particular religion, FSMism, not only arose after the advent of quantum physics, and, while it does state that the theory of quantum physics is false, it can still coexist with it, because not only is it one of the core tenets of FSMism is that any scientific evidence we collect might have been fiddled with by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but also there is the unspecifically stated tenet that any or all of the tenets themselves might be misleading or even outright false.

It's worth mentioning at this point that, although the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster holds that the FSM changes observed data to make things seem to behave a certain way, it does not explicitly state that all[i] scientific theories are [i]completely and absolutely false. Rather, it holds that, by coincidence and/or by design, scientists have been led to believe certain things about spacetime that are, if not completely false, at least not entirely accurate.

This has interesting implications. From a FSMist standpoint, we can say that gravity is not, in fact, a result of spacetime bending around objects or what have you, but simply a result of the FSM's Noodly Appendages pushing down on us and holding us to the ground. This, of course, contrasts with the way science would lead us to expect gravity to behave. However, we must remember that it is the FSM himself changing the data. Therefore, while the scientific data we have gathered may be inaccurate, it is still inaccurate in a way planned by the FSM (still speaking rhetorically from an FSMist standpoint). The FSM could have done this simply because he was drunk, but he could also have done this because he wanted us to believe these things, or perhaps even both.

With the fact that science neither has explained, nor seems like it will explain in the near future, why the universe as we know it is here as a starting point, and taking into account that science is only as accurate as the data we collect, one could, hypothetically, accept FSMism as true. From here, if we accept that the universe appears the way it does because the FSM wills it to appear so (or at least drunkenly allowed it to appear so and then didn't change it), and also accept that the Gospel is open to interpretation and that therefore any or all of our beliefs can be inaccurate or outright false, we can earnestly practice Pastafarianism, and yet still behave as though science is useful and as though our current scientific theories are accurate. We can also accept that FSM ID is no more or less accurately classified as "science" than Christian ID (and perhaps is even more logically consistent, since Christian ID doesn't have the nifty clause about science being inaccurate due to its tenets being set in stone long before the advent of modern science) and therefore argue that FSM ID should be taught for the same amount of time in science classes as other creation ideas such as Christian ID, whether that time be an equal amount of time as real science, or no time whatsoever (preferably the latter).

Now, of course, if it is ever decided that FSM ID will be taught alongside Christian ID and science in science classes, then the attempt to get religion out of science classes will have failed. It's kind of a complex Catch 22: the IDers are not going to stop pushing for their ideas to be taught as science unless they are summarily overruled.

--One could argue rationally against it, but dry rationality doesn't usually get enough popular attention to achieve the desired effect of summary overruling.

--One could, in an attempt to scare Christians out of pushing for their ideas, argue for inclusion of already-existing religious creation ideas to be taught as science if such is allowed for Christian ideas. However, you then run the risk either of those religions actually getting accepted as science as well, or of those religions being swept aside when people believe, fairly or not, that the thinly-veiled Christian ID idea includes those other religions.

--One could, as Bobby Henderson did, introduce an previously unknown religion that seems to be, at least on the surface, patently absurd, and push for that to be taught alongside Christian ID in an attempt to scare them into backing down. However, this presents a conundrum: If you introduce a religion that is itself just as logically consistent, if not more so, than the religion you are attempting to keep out of science, there is no real reason why it can't be followed as a real religion. If you create a religion that has enough flaws that it's impossible to accept as possible, the parody falls flat.

Regardless of whether FSMism was intended to be a real religion or not, the fact remains that it is one of the very few (in fact, probably the only) religion that is logically consistent, that is possible and even enjoyable to follow, that promotes compassion and friendliness rather than hatred and contempt, and that features a compassionate and loving deity. Therefore, it is in fact quite an appealing and practical religion if you manage to get over the initial shock of its seeming absurdity.

User avatar
EarthRise
Hox God
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: who wants to know?
Contact:

Postby EarthRise » Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:49 am

Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:Therefore, it is in fact quite an appealing and practical religion if you manage to get over the initial shock of its seeming absurdity.


This one statement is the key of your entire post and my complete argument. While I agree with you on many of your points - we have only hypotheses for the universal origin, FSMism is as logically consistent as several other religious versions - I still feel as though you've skimmed over the totality of what I'm pointing out.

The FSM was invented by Bobby to demonstrate that purpose you've observed above. The FSM illustrates a completely absurd alternative to the creationist manner of thinking, and yet is still as viable as any other religion you could create in two minutes. However, the entire meaning of the FSM is as a criticism through absurd example; He exists for that intent. If a person actually believes in the FSM, the FSM fails in His purpose, since He becomes a religion just as misled and blind as all the others.
[...] the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
-Darwin

User avatar
Almighty Doer of Stuff
Brewmeister
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Postby Almighty Doer of Stuff » Tue Nov 27, 2007 8:20 am

I like this discussion. It's making me think. I like thinking. I was scared I was completely correct for a moment there.

EarthRise wrote:The FSM was invented by Bobby


Or so it seems. The FSM, working with the malicious efforts of early Christians, could have simply manipulated the evidence to make it appear as though he invented it, while in actuality it has existed since creation. Of course, this implies that the FSM wants it that way, or at least doesn't care to change it.

So essentially, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is flexible enough that one could follow the religion earnestly, at least as far as the basic religious tenets go (not those of the satirical aspect, which are different but related)—namely, that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, that he likes to manipulate evidence for reasons known only to him, and that he wants us to eat pasta, be pirates, spread His Word, and generally not be obnoxious— while still being able to use it as an absurd parody, because to adamantly demand that there are millions of Pastafarians, that the decline of pirates caused global warming, and that history has progressed in a completely different manner than is generally accepted, despite the fact that there's no real evidence, either observable or religious (this goes for FSMism, whose holy texts say it did but also say that the holy texts contain various inaccuracies and lies, and Abrahamism, which offers a history of the universe that is not only significantly constricted chronologically and factually different from what we observe, but doesn't even consider the evidence against what it says), for such a position, is, unlike belief in the basic tenets, completely absurd, impractical, inconsistent, and illogical.

Nevertheless, casting aside the religious history still leaves open the possibility of one honestly believing the core religion and practicing its philosophy, which inherently involves not becoming too attached to one's current interpretation, but which is still logically possible and consistent. So can such a person be called a Pastafarian? It's like being a Christian and still being a Pastafarian, in my opinion. One could be a religious and philosophical Pastafarian while still being a satirical and pseudocultural Pastafarian.

EDIT: Actually, I guess the satirical part is part of the philosophical part, but when I said "philosophical" in the previous sentence I meant the non-strictly-satirical aspects of the philosophy.

User avatar
Clifford
Humble Hermit
Posts: 1646
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:50 am
Location: A Humble Student in Lunaticity

Postby Clifford » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:58 pm

It doesn't make them anything, they just miscomprehended the cause.
Clifford

By the power invested in me by tabloid-reading imbeciles, I name you a pedo-dog!

The Pedo-Finder General

RAmen


Return to “All Things FSM”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests