When we are speaking of a religion, we usually speak of one that involves a supernatural personage or principle, a faith-verified individual, pantheon, or concept. The other definitions of religion are more poetic, and, while perfectly valid, don't get the same attention from the government.
I'm being lazy and quoting myself from another thread when I say:
As to your points concerning what makes a "real religion," I think I have provided enough evidence to suggest that, because Pastafarianism actively demands a two-faced treatment of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that is to say, the advocates of the FSM realize that the FSM is a parody, and maintain Him as such a parody to other people, any such person who has faith in a flying lump of spaghetti is not a Pastafarian, but rather a complete nut.
Pastafarianism seems to require that hypocritical aspect to make preying on people's comprehension of religion and its ridiculous statements so much sweeter.
To summarize: a real religion must have those who actually believe in its doctrines. And belief in the doctrines of Pastafarianism essentially isolates one from Pastafarianism. So even if there are true believers of the FSM, they cannot be considered true Pastafarianisms; ergo, true Pastafarianism will never have a population of those who actually believe in the FSM.