Is Pastafarianism (AKA The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster) a real religion?

[cleanhippie]

I would say yes, it is, based on the common definition of "religion" as it even has its own Holy Text. http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568


If you disagree, will you please state your reasons why?

[n2doc]

1. It's as real as Scientology

And many others...

I always ask, if your god is the 'true' god, you should be able to prove it. We have pictures of the FSM!
in Space:


And even in the tiniest protein molecules

[MarkCharles]

9. Since I simply LOVE a good Italian Pasta meal, does that make me

a Pastafarian?

I'm not about to give up my love of pasta, for anyone!

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. If people with a record of gullibility started saying they really believe in the FSM

then it would have more credibility as a religion (as Scientology arguably does; whatever those running it believe, those who have spent a lot of money on it seem to genuinely think it's true). But it always seems to be sceptics with a sense of humour who claim to truly believe; and we look at their track record, and conclude that they're still talking about it just to make points about religion and the treatment of religion by society.

[cleanhippie]

5. So it comes down to credibility?

I can agree with that idea, but just what makes a religion credible?

[Goblinmonger]

3. I see it as on the same vein as the Stephen Colbert SuperPAC

It's real, but it's point is to show the absurdity in various things related to "traditional" religions (be it the beliefs, the lack of proof, the forcing of the religion on others, the role of privilege, etc).

[rrneck]

4. Yes, it's a religion

for the same reason every other religion is a religion.

[cleanhippie]

6. I tend to agree.

And if we are going to respect peoples' beliefs, then this needs to get just as much respect as any other religion.

[tama]

11. Oh Infidel!

Thou shalt not respect the Most Holy Principles of Discordianism that state that the Most Holy Principles of Discordianism deserve no respect deserve nothing but most amiable contempt. And that serves you right, there!

[rrneck]

20. Complicated, aint it?

[tama]

21. Is it

a string, a knot, a braid,
or just a thread of yawn?
Is there a hidden
fearful hypersymmetry,
the math Koan of The TOE?
(purple and blue, nail needs clipping)

Lesser men like Big Al of Gordion

STRIKE!

the loop, the knot, the braid of wool
with their swords that might,
but lo and wow the knitting kin!



PS: thanks for the new pair of socks, dear Santa, they keep my toes warm.

[rrneck]

23. Big Al is pretty effective

as long as his shoe laces aren't knotted together. And if he tries to work his magic on that it might cost him a few toes.

[tama]

24. word nt

[tama]

7. Is Discordianism Religion?

If you agree it is, then I must state my most vehement erisian objection!

[MarkCharles]

8. Why would one religious person object to any other religion?

After all, ALL religions are based upon FAITH, not proof of anything in particular.

[tama]

10. Why?, you ask,

you who have not seen the light of Discordianism, but in Word and Deed followeth this Most Infallible faith most objectively and rationally and with papal infallibility that is the prerogative, before asking any questions, of every member of the Discordian Congregation.

Or to put it bluntly, Discordianism is religion based on the undisputable and eternally repeatable lab experiment, which proves beyond any doubt that disagreement exists and thus much Holy Rite of Debate followeth, causing much Hollyness of chaos, bureaucracy, conflict, spontaneous symmetry breaking and discord*.




SUBNOTES
*In modern times, anything that causes conflict or discord is said to be eristic. In speech and debate, for example, there are certain tactics that are not meant to fairly win a debate, but merely to prolong the conflict or confuse and anger an opponent. The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer identified these “38 Stratagems” in his book Eristic Dialectic. These tactics are not considered fair by the rules of debate etiquette. Nevertheless, they are often used in modern political debate and in open discussion of controversial topics.

In the 1960s, the American writers Kerry Thornley and Gregory Hill decided that eristic principles clearly dictated much of human behavior and history. Accordingly, they invented Discordianism, a religion celebrating Eris and her work in the modern world. While some considered Discordianism a joke or an art prank, it attracted many adherents who saw the sense of its nonsensical concepts. The symbol of Discordianism is the golden apple of Eris, known as the Apple of Discord. The author Robert Anton Wilson, who often wrote about Discordianism, described the eristic principles governing human activity as “chaos, discord, confusion, bureaucracy and international relations.”

**http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-eristic-mean.htm

***You are wrong, oh so

****erisiously serious

*****So That There Is a Five, Oh Most High!

[MarkCharles]

12. It is very true, I disrespect all religions based upon faith alone, I admit it..

and I don't take well to lectures about other authors who have not looked outside their own viewpoints for the last few years while they were writing books.

I look at religious people each and every day of my life, and I see nothing but mythologies and fantasies and claims of "faith" over facts.

Does that make me a reasonable target of ridicule as some religious believers, (like you) seem to be so willing to do?

[tama]

13. We are all myopic

from our special points of view - keeping in mind the story about blind men and an elephant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant). From my special myopia I don't see myself as a religious believer, and I see you as someone who often sees religious believers, or rather caricatures of, even where they don't exist. As someone who does not want to see others as they are, each being as unique, but as caricatures and prototypes and objects of preaching how wrong and stupid they are, which is of course usually counterproductive towards your aim of liberating people from false believes. Which brings to mind another ancient story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun

As for the "ridicule" you perceived, maybe you agree there can be also other kinds of ridicule besides the one with intention to just insult and hurt, so that the insulter can feel more righteous. We often take ourselves and our opinions too seriously, and become burdensome towards those to whom we unload our seriousness, and kind and jesting Jollynesh-Hollyness (self)ridicule can sometimes help to take ourselves and other stuff less seriously so that everyone has more fun. With a High Five in the end of the Discordian Sermon, which is a fun religion because it's impossible to tell if it's just a prank to ridicule serious religions, or if there is a Really Serious message hidden there somewhere. Just impossible!

[ZombieHorde]

14. It fits the definition presented in my Religion class:

supernatural answers to life's philosophical questions.

[cbayer]

15. I like that definition.

[tama]

16. I don't like it very much

Animistic and pantheistic world views that sense all nature as divine and develop relations with various nature spirits don't consider them supernatural, but very natural. The whole notion of anything "supernatural" is alien to most such world views.

I see two main ideas or uses of the word 'supernatural', and they are related:
1) hierarchical personal ruler-creator god over nature, and in some sense "outside" - the "sky-daddy", patriarchal projection of omnipotent head of family
2) anything falling beyond the explanatory scope of current most widely known and accepted scientific theories, which define "what" and "how" nature is - ie. supernatural vis a vis scientism (or "definitionism&quot .

A friend of mine started her doctoral thesis in the field of study of religions by explaining that there is no commonly accepted definition of religion, only family resemblance in the objects of academic study. His professor said in his retirement speech from the university that study of religions, like cultural anthropology, is study of world views, and stressed the importance of ethics of scholars in these fields, not to objectify the peoples who are studied, but to stand with them and support their way of life. This professor has dedicated his life to supporting the struggle of survival of the few remaining shamanistic tribes in northern Eurasia.

[cbayer]

17. Your knowledge about this is much deeper and more refined than mine.

I was basing this on a rather simplistic definition of supernatural - that which can't be measured or scientifically explained.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

18. Why not?

Some of us would consider it just as real as any "real" religion. They're all made up, so how much different is the FSM?

[cleanhippie]

19. I agree.

[deacon_sephiroth]

22. far more real than most n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

25. No, absolutely not, it's a joke religion. The difference is that no-one believes in it.

People who say they believe in the Flying Spaghetti monster are all, without exception, lying (or at least "not telling the truth" - very few of them are actually trying to convince anyone).

The difference is not whether or not the beliefs are any sillier or less true than those of other religions, but whether or not anyone actually holds them. Many scientologists really do believe in Thetans; no pastafarians believe in the Flying spaghetti monster.

[cleanhippie]

26. So it's a kind of "no true pasta" thing?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. All true religions have believers. I think that's a fairly key part of the definition. N.T.