Thread: Flying Spaghetti Monster

It's a statement. A mockery. A parody. Nothing truly believed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the parody religion[1][2] "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster".[3] It was created in 2005 by Bobby Henderson as a satirical protest to the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools. Since the intelligent design movement used ambiguous references to an unspecified "Intelligent Designer" to avoid court rulings prohibiting the teaching of creationism as a science, this presumably left open the possibility that any imaginable thing could fill that role.

The Church of the FSM is purely satire. It's pointing out the ridiculousness of religion. I believe it was started because of a school board vote over having intelligent design taught in schools.

If intelligent design was to be taught, so then would FSMism be taught. I really cannot believe anyone thinks that they are for real.

Yeah, I've known people who are part of the church and actually practice the cremony. But I'm almost positive thar even to them it's still just humor. The more closely the doctrine is observed the more elaborate the joke, I suppose.

HOW DARE YOU ALL INSULT MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN SUCH A WAY!?!?! I'll have you know that the church of the flying spaghetti monster, ramen, is a completely valid and appropriate religion. I don't know why I even come to this section anymore, its just a bunch of people trying to ruin my religion for everyone.

I mean fettucini alfredo, chill the hell out everyone. The flying spaghetti monster doesn't care what you think about him, still you're all being unnecessarily hateful to what its essentially the noodley appendaged incarnation of ultimate good.

I'm just saying back off the FSM bashing guys, we don't say hurtful things about your ability to practice your faith or lack thereof, show us the same respect.

Ramen.

Sorry, but the Jedi church is the only true religion. The rest of you are going to hell.

You just have to have faith. And I mean... you BETTER have faith, or you are just fucked.

What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Why do atheists think this is an argument.

So... what if God is a flying spaghetti monster? Does that stop him from being God?

Seriously, get a grip, and a few braincogs.

We are just saying that the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be taken out of the class room.

seriously, you people expect your god to be taught in school and then turn right around and leave us pastafarians in the cold.

Fucking hypocrites

"Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools."

and this is why I have no hope in humanity. not even a drop.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

"Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools."

Thank FSM, this is glorious news. May you all be blessed by his noodly appendages as well as the countless converts that well will have after our practices are taught in school. Ramen.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

"Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools."

and this is why I have no hope in humanity. not even a drop.

Don't worry, there are many countries where that would never happen.

Originally Posted by SpecialInterests

"Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution in public schools."

and this is why I have no hope in humanity. not even a drop.

They might as well stop teaching biology too. After all, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".

http://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/

I love the hate mail.

"I THINK U GUYS ARE DECIEVED BY THE DEVIL AND HIS SPIRITS. MAKING THIS STUFF UP IS MERELY CREATED BY SOMEONE AND ITS AN EXCUSE TO HAVE AND DO WHAT UWANNA DO AND I FEEL THAT SOME SPAGHETTI MONSTER CANT EXPLAIN THE UNEXPLAINED AND CANT HELP ME SPIRITUALLY AS I COME TO REALIZE CHRIST HELPS ME MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY AND I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS TRUE AND TRY HIM CHRIST IS REAL AND PERSONALLY THATS MY EVIDENCE. PEOPLE ITS ALL MADE UP THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER ISNT REAL"

"Hello…Bobby,
I am a 11 year old who accidently found your website. I can’t bellieve why you would do that. I really don’t like you. My younger brother almost found your site, I h-a-t-e you.
-Rachel"

Originally Posted by metcalfracing

seriously, you people expect your god to be taught in school and then turn right around and leave us pastafarians in the cold.

Fucking hypocrites

Tis true.

Just as nobody can prove the judeo-christian God doesn't exist nobody can prove that the FSM doesn't exist.

Therefore, either both stay in the curriculum, or both go. It's as simple as that.

Ramen.

I hate the flying spaghetti monster. It's a half-arsed, cop-out of an argument. If anyone is a member then grow up. It does not even come close to an argument. I'm not religious at all. I'm a philosopher and this actually inspires some anger in me.

Lets take it seriously for a minute and apply some Philosophy to it:

Firstly, it's not a fitting argument. God (to the believers) is not a man-made phenomemon. spaghetti, unfortunately does not grow on trees. It's a man-made thing. So how can this flying spaghetti monster be anything of a designer of the universe?

In fact, i'm not gunna do anymore criticisms. I can't be bothered. It's a stupid idea and a stupid argument. Grow up.

It wasn't ever intended as an argument against God. It was intended to illustrate the irrationality of the Kansas School Board in insisting that "Intelligent Design" be taught in public schools. In other words: if Intelligent Design should be taught as a valid theory of the origin of life simply because some people think it's true, why stop there? We think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of life. Shouldn't that be taught in schools as well?

The Invisible Pink Unicorn, on the other hand, is intended as a direct parody of theism. I would like for you to discuss how Invisible Pink Unicornism is a less reasonable belief system than other major forms of theism.

It wasn't ever intended as an argument against God. It was intended to illustrate the irrationality of the Kansas School Board in insisting that "Intelligent Design" be taught in public schools. In other words: if Intelligent Design should be taught as a valid theory of the origin of life simply because some people think it's true, why stop there? We think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of life. Shouldn't that be taught in schools as well?

Sorry, i wasn't all that clear. Personally i've seen it used as an argument against how irrational the belief in god is.

On the subject of the Kansas School Board issue, read my criticism above. In all fairness god is a massive part of history and culture, and also there is a massive amount of believers. Why shouldn't it be taught in schools? There are religious scientists who believe that evolution and intelligent design can both be true.

Another point is that the evolution theory is just that. A theory.

Originally Posted by b!ll

On the subject of the Kansas School Board issue, read my criticism above.

The part about FSM being man-made? The implication here, of course, is that other major forms of theism are not man-made. I think you'll have a hard time backing up that claim.

Originally Posted by b!ll

In all fairness god is a massive part of history and culture, and also there is a massive amount of believers. Why shouldn't it be taught in schools? There are religious scientists who believe that evolution and intelligent design can both be true.

I agree that it makes sense to teach about religion in schools -- but the point is that it belongs in the history books, not the science books.

Regarding the compatibility of evolution and creationism: yeah, absolutely they are compatible. Evolution isn't a theory about how life arose, it's a theory about what happened to life after it arose. So while evolution may conflict with some particular religious systems (e.g., contradicts some accounts from their holy texts), it's impossible for it to conflict with the principle of creationism.

Originally Posted by b!ll

Another point is that the evolution theory is just that. A theory.

Are we really going to start this conversation? Really?

The part about FSM being man-made? The implication here, of course, is that other major forms of theism are not man-made. I think you'll have a hard time backing up that claim.

The the eyes of the believer, god is an innate conecpt. I don't particularly agree, as i'm not religious. So we'll drop this part.

I agree that it makes sense to teach about religion in schools -- but the point is that it belongs in the history books, not the science books.

I don't believe that subjects are confined within their walls. they all mix. You can apply religion and history to science the same as you can apply mathematics to science.

Are we really going to start this conversation? Really?

Yeah i'm up for that.

Originally Posted by b!ll

I don't believe that subjects are confined within their walls. they all mix. You can apply religion and history to science the same as you can apply mathematics to science.

The point is that there's nothing wrong with teaching about various belief systems, their histories, cultural impact, etc. But there's a lot wrong with trying to pass off the particular beliefs of a particular religion as some sort of objective truth. That's not teaching history or science at all -- that's preaching.

Originally Posted by b!ll

Yeah i'm up for that.

Then you should start by clarifying and elaborating exactly what you mean to say with that comment. I wouldn't want to misrepresent your position.

I'll fill this one and spare the thread of several posts dancing around the shitty just-a-theory "argument":

In Science, a theory isn't just a guess at some truth. A theory is a model which attempts to explain a set of observed facts, it should be noted that even then the term 'theory' is reserved for models that have proven their worth and reliability, otherwise they're called an "hypothesis".

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it happens.

The reason most creationists get so bent up out of shape about evolutionism is they view it as a threat to their faith. They don't realize that it is their own fault that it's a threat. Sure, evolution is often taught as an alternative to creation, (which it isn't.) But that's only half the issue. Creationists reinforce this idea of conflict by teaching that creation is an alternative to evolution. The church is fighting a losing battle. Not because God is weaker than science, but because the study of God is science. (Which so many fundamentalists can't seem to understand.)

Creationism taught in schools can't happen. It's ridiculous. It would actually be a boon to atheists and a bane to religous people by further making it seem as if creation/evolution is exclusive. And when they see how delicately the creationistic evidence is presented compared to the bluntness of the evolutionary evidence, the choice for the highschooler becomes clear.

What's been said here is entirely true, you can be an evolutionary creationist. In fact, you can be an evolutionary creationist and still be a scriptoral Christian. (We are seeing a shift towards that even now. And, out of neccesity, the church will adapt realizing that God doesn't need to be made to stand in the way of scientific progress. The same thing happened when the church admitted that the Earth was round, which they had previously interpretted- using ludicrous logic- that God had claimed.)

You see conservative sects, take the one I was raised in- The Church of Christ- dissapearing all over the place. That's because they are losing their youth faster than they gain members. Although the church should be about solid interpretation of God's word and helping with God's mission, it is also very political. So, rather than initially realizing that something clearly ambigous, (creation,) shouldn't be the basis of doctrine, the church itself will 'evolve' based on what is required of it to exist.

Agreed that evolution is a theory in that how things evolve isn't for certain. On the same note, how gravity works isn't for certain either. But we know that it does. Any reasonable person will admit that they stand to be wrong, but we've observed evolution. (There is no macro/micro evolution as people like Kent Hovind present it. It's number 2 of 5 on the biggest flunks of standard creationist argument.)

In Science, a theory isn't just a guess at some truth. A theory is a model which attempts to explain a set of observed facts, it should be noted that even then the term 'theory' is reserved for models that have proven their worth and reliability, otherwise they're called an "hypothesis".

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it happens.

I agree with the first bit. However, something is a theory until proven. Once it's proven it's no longer a theory. Just because it has a bit supporting evidence does not make it 100% true. That's why it's called a theory.