Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Terrible

"Parody" ?

I just noticed an apparent challenge by somebody to find one good source that says Pastafarianism is a real religion. I have found probably the best source out there, the prophet himself. This is on the official website of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. [1] "Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental." This was written by Bobby Henderson, the prophet

If this isn't a good source of information about this religion, then I don't know what a good source could possibly be. I would also like to say that thousands of people around the world are devout Pastafarians and are undoubtedly insulted by this. Mr. Fuzzles 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been talked about before. The consensus is that it’s a deadpan parody, like The Onion. The reason it’s considered a parody is that Bobby Henderson has made numerous comments consistent with it being one in interviews. Seano1 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it is an actual quote, but Hubbard is often quoted as saying: “If you want to make a little money, write a book. If you want to make a lot of money, create a religion.” [2]. Yet Scientology is not outright branded as a money making scheme. I have no illusions that Scientology is anything else but wholly malevolent, but I still think they deserve to have their point of view told as well. Because I don't have all the facts. Same goes for FSM. So if they officially maintain that they are a serious and a real religion, than it should be stated so in the article. Followed by, of course, that some consider it a parody religion. PredatorOC
Actually, Scientology is officially recognized as a "totalitarian organisation" and fraud-scheme rather than a religion in some countries, most prominently Germany. Other countries just grant the "church" this status to avoid legal conflicts. Malc82 16:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
We are under no obligation to take a parody at face value. There is nobody who genuinely holds the view that FSM is not a parody, therefore we should not include such a view in the article. This is not the case with scientology. — Matt Crypto 12:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
The site itself (venganza.org) does not say that it is a parody. Or at least I missed it if it was said. So claiming that no mention of this should added before the parody religion part goes against NPOV. Taking things at face value is different from giving all significant points of view. PredatorOC
There is no point of view to be represented here. — Matt Crypto 15:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I had forgotten why trying to get anything done here is comparable to hitting yourself repeatedly in the head with a hammer. I really should stop. PredatorOC
That would be best. — Matt Crypto 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Matt, you said:
There is nobody who genuinely holds the view that FSM is not a parody, therefore we should not include such a view in the article.
I don't think there's any basis for making such a generalization. It's not really possible to prove a blanket negative like that anyway. Perhaps you meant to say something more like, "While there may be a few out there who genuinely hold the view that FSM is not a parody, they are in a very tiny minority and have clearly failed to understand Henderson's point in the first place, and therefore their views are not particularly noteworthy for inclusion here." Or something to that effect. I would support such a statement fully.
Yes, you know and I know that a significant percentage of those coming into this article claiming to be true believers (ie., not in-on-the-joke) are just pretending outrage in order to yank our chains and attempt to hoist us by our own policy petards. But common courtesy dictates we should at least assume good faith and therefore optimistically hope that each individual making such a claim is not here to be a jerk. This doesn't mean we have to include their viewpoint in the article, of course; merely that we should be polite. No matter how boring it gets to explain this to them over and over and...  ;) Cheers, Kasreyn 00:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah. I did mean exactly what I said. It's pretty self-evident that when someone claims belief in a flying spaghetti monster, they are not acting in good faith. If you really want to engage these people as if they were attempting to make a sincere contribution to the encyclopedia, I can't stop you, but I'm certainly not going to play along with people acting out games. — Matt Crypto 12:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
James Randi: "satirical" [3]; NY Times: "parody" [4]; USA Today: "parody religion" [5] --h2g2bob (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This is precisely why venganza should not be used as a source at all. It is self-published and this is exactly the kind of confusing self-referential thing you run into when self-published sites are used. You get someone coming along saying "but wait, Bobby says right here [insert link to venganza] that pastafarianism is REAL". That person is understandably confused because the website is used as a cite for other items on this very page. It is bad practice, it is confusing, and is contrary to the rules of WP.MikeURL 16:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Obviously vengaza is not reliable to establish whether it's deadpan comedy. However, saying we can't reference Bobby to establish their purported beliefs is like saying you can't reference the Pope about Christianity. --h2g2bob (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually it isn't anything of the sort. The Pope represents a real religion. And even if Bobby were like the Pope, Venganza is not a reliable source. If you want to quote Bobby as though he were the Pope that is fine but it should be done from secondary sources.MikeURL 17:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
"Real religion"? Christianity is no more real than FSMism. This is horribly offensive, as I am a true follower and believer, and I don't appreciate people calling my beliefs a parody. Happinessiseasy 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read Justfred's comment below about intentional parodies and those things which others may simply believe parody themselves. "Real religion" does not mean "only true and correct religion" in this sense. In the sense of this discussion, "real religion" means "genuine spiritual belief system not designed with satirical or deceitful intent". Christianity is in this sense a "real" religion because its founders believed in it truly; FSM's founder created an intentional parody, after which various individuals have claimed to be true believers. The original intent of the religion's founder seems critical here. Cheers, Kasreyn 23:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Church Of the FSM is not a parody religion. There are many loyal followers of the FSM, I, and several other people I know follow the FSM. To call it a parody is discriminating to Pastafarians and I won't stand for a real religion being called a parody. What if we labeled the Chirstian religion a parody? I don't believe in it but I still reconize it as a religion just like the church of the FSM. Konigstigerii 04:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We have many reliable sources that this is a parody. If you can find major newspapers calling Christianity a parody you might have an argument. Please remember that Wikipedia cares about verifiability, not truth. JoshuaZ 05:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I too am a Pastafarian but must accept Wikipedia's rules of verifiability and undue weight. Anyway a true Pastafarian would not be bugging the poor editors of this article. As the Good Book says - "I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject." Sophia 05:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok then I think we should re-word the begining paragraph, that states something to the effect of that some call it a parody religion, but has many loyal followers that believe in the FSM. That way people who read it will understand to some its a parody and to some its a real religion. What do you think? Konigstigerii 05:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I think people should go play outside. It's worrying how terribly unfunny it is to have people taking this too far. Chris Cunningham 08:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish my pirate costume was as nice as yours. Sophia 09:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a parody - that's the point. It's also why it should be referred to as a real religion. It certainly makes as much sense as the others, and has just as much certainty behind its principals. If you call Christianity legit, this must be called legit also. Parody is an important tool in bringing to light stupidity and illogical thinking, and lowering the status of FSM will not help its cause. I propose we refer to it as a real religion in articles, and its Gospel is given the genre of both 'satirical novel' AND 'religious text'. P g chris 21:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a WP:POINT problem. "This article should be allowed to violate this policy because that other article over there does!" The solution is to fix the other article. Wikipedia has no business "calling Christianity legit", if by that you mean supporting or endorsing that religion. Or did you simply mean referring to Christianity as a real religion where FSM is a parody? In that case, be aware that there are many branches of Christianity, some of which can't seem to agree on even the most basic points of theology. It's a mistake to consider Christianity a unified whole with a unified message.
Additionally, be aware that forwarding FSM's cause isn't WP's purpose - informing readers about FSM (including, perhaps, about FSM's cause, if that's notable), is. I admire Henderson's satirical effort, but WP can't distort facts in order to support a cause. FSM is simply a parody, with very little third-party, reliable evidence of actual "true believers". In time, of course, that may change if people begin to take the joke seriously. Kasreyn 11:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We are under an obligation to treat all religions with neutrality and not to brand any religion a parody. There is nobody who genuinely holds the view that scientology is not a parody, yet neutrality demands that we treat it as real. Why is this not the case with so-called 'Pastafarianism'? User:Pedant 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Because FSM is an _intentional_ parody. Perhaps that's the word that's missing from the first sentence of this article. As opposed the other religions that are unintentional parodies of themselves.--Justfred 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Simply put, your assertion that "there is nobody who genuinely holds the view that scientology is not a parody" is incorrect. — Matt Crypto 05:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Deshin thats utter rediculus and regardless of what you say I know you dont believe that, however some people may be that... finatical, so a more neutral term/description might be approprate. Nobody is denying you religious freedom since they are not forcing you to believe in something else, you have no legal right to claim this, just like i couldnt make up something on the spot and claim it to be a religon. Sure the letter was a was interesting and funny but your taking it too far. Laso this Ar4ticle is still rated B on the WikiProject Religons meaing its still needs work -Devindra Payment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This religion seems no more of a parody than various elements of Christianity. It was suggested that if we could find an authoritative source which suggests Christianity was a parody then it would have to be added to their article, I have one. Thomas Paine in "the Age of Reason" (you can get it on project Gutenburg) does a pretty good job of arguing that, whilst almost all of the Bible is an out and out lie, the story of Jonah and the whale is in fact a parody against religion as is described in the old testament... given this could we maybe settle on "the FSM is said, similarly to Christianity, to be a parody religion"? or some other such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.22.14 (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is truly not a parody to those that follow it. I was presented the evidence and find it much more plausible than Christianity. The christians do not account for why the science readings say the world is old. Me and my brothers will all keep changing this page from several IP's and I'll make everyone across the world get in on it. I do not care much for the latter parts of it, but to outright say its a parody in the beginning will dissuade people from being saved. I know you do not want stale beer and VD for the rest of your death. Now this does not defy the eight I'd rather you didn'ts because we are not acting like you should believe in us, but the opportunity for more people to join our religion should not be shut out by a person's opinion that we're a joke. In fact, the fact we look like a parody is just a test in our faith. (pastafarian0000000001) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastafarian0000000001 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And us anti-Vandals will keep on reverting untill this debate has come to its conclusion in your favor ;-) If you really want the article changing, the best way would be to intelligently prove your point on this talk page. Neobros 17:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, listen and know my logic isn't flawed. I understand why me deleting it was removed, but a compromise of popularly believed to be a parody is a 100% fact. If I believe in something... I'm crazy. If two or more.... it's a religion. Now whether this is called a cult doesn't matter, but I'll have to ask a higher-up why you fail to realize calling it a parody religion is a popular opinion only confirmed by things that infer parody. To say that it is believed as a parody religion and go on about why it's a parody religion in the link is far more factual than the opinionated, insulting, and uninformed statement that my beliefs are ridiculous. Pastafarian0000000001

You do have a point. If enough people devoutly believe in the FSM as fact, it could be classed as a religion; However this is an encyclopedia, you would need to prove a large amount of people do, and with atleast one credible source for that information.
I would have no problem signing onto your side of the debate if you can. Neobros 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The number of devout followers is immense. Have you even read the gospel? If you don't I suggest you give a good read through it. But that doesn't matter... you are putting an opinion on wikipedia. I would be upset even if I wasn't a pastafarian. There is overwhelming information of the big bang happening 13.7 billion years ago, there are fossils in the ground saying a story of evolution, there is many occasions where the bible is wrong. But we cannot place any of those as fact. So what makes your theory that the noodly lord is so false more strong of evidence than background radiation? Exactly, I'm sure someone will realize opinions should have a shroud of "believed to be" in case the shrill wind of legal action blows one day. Pastafarian0000000001 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, my Noodly God wil protect me from any legal action ;-) Neobros 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

you obviously don't believe because that compromise was more valid than what's written. You hate the idea that this religion has more explanation of the world than yours because you follow a 2000 year old book not written by god. Dinosaurs would have been mentioned or anything unknown to humans at that time if it was a real book. Thats why our book mentions many things unknown to us that may seem parodyish. Pastafarian0000000001 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First point I'd like to make: This recent argument between unregistered users (myself included, unfortunately, due to confusion) has horrible thread formatting, and I can't figure out which posts the previous posts are responding to. This post is in response to the discussion as a whole, I guess. I don't know how or if it should be fixed, but I feel I should point it out.

Second point: Is it not possible for Pastafarianism to be both a parody and a legitimate religion? Something like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (also known as the Spaghedeity) is the deity of a religion called The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[1] and its system of beliefs, "Pastafarianism". The religion is designed as a parody, although as part of the satirical nature it is designed in such a way that it could conceivably be followed as a legitimate religion." --ADoS 71.192.64.235 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a vision, the noodly appendage wrote in pasta sauce on my wall. I'm quite un-nerved. All true Pastafarians *must* keep correcting the entry as a true religion (not a parody). mxpule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxpule (talk • contribs) 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because, see, I'm a Pastafarian, and I say it's a parody religion too. The FSM says you're wrong. -EarthRise33 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This may have been intended as parody. This is fact. This was a created religion. This is a fact. This is a religion. This is a fact. It is not acceptable in our society to label any religion as not real or correct. The classification of this as a parody will be challenged until it it ended. The only way to end this controversy is to cease this classification. Let us keep in mind that all religions when they were new were labeled as "wrong," or not as being real or correct (thing of everything from Christianity to Scientology). The labeling of this as a parody removes its edge - its power -- its validity. It should stop. Nicholas SL Smith 03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The bold font is kinda excessive. Anyway, Pastafarianism has been recognized by outsiders as a parody, and, indeed, the efficacy of Pastafarianism is lost if it is observed as a real religion. It is acceptable to apply labels when the humor of the so-called 'religion' hinges on the ability of its own members, as well as those not claiming belief, to discern the inherent joke. And comparisons to other religions go nowhere, given that real religions require an absolute belief in the particular deity(ies), and a true belief in FSM effectively erases the two-faced hypocrisy of all members that makes FSMism so effective, i.e., the idea that 'I can claim anything I want, even if I know it to be absurd and misleading, and still have it stand as valid as your ID statements.' -EarthRise33 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It would have perhaps been excessive if it weren't intended to be such a strong statement. I believe not enough respect is given to different religions, religious people, and non-religious people. It seems to be the last frontier of thought - it seems most are completely childish when discussing religious differences (as though everyone secretly knows he or she is correct, but is entertaining conversation for the sake of appearing thoughtful.) Regardless - I see positively no reason that this should be labeled a parody but Scientology, for example, should not be. Does anyone else know? Nicholas SL Smith 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Because, as discussed here ad infinitum, it is an intentional parody. As such, it is classified with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and other parody religions. I don't believe this makes it any more or less real or correct.--Justfred 00:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that those who argue that FSM should not be labelled a parody are committing a logical fallacy. The argument typically goes along the lines of:

  1. FSM is labeled a parody religion.
  2. If something is a parody, then it is not real or correct.
  3. Other religions (Christianity, Scientology) are not real or correct either.
  4. Hence, those other religions are parodies too.
  5. We should therefore be consistent and either label FSM and other religions as parodies equally, or none at all.

The logical error is step 4: affirming the consequent. All parodies are falsehoods, but not every false thing is a parody. — Matt Crypto 10:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you're established that this logic path is incorrect; however, what you have not done is speak to the correct of labeling FSM as a parody religion. The fallacy of one argument does not prove the fallacy of all arguments which end up with the same results. Besides, what I am arguing here can literally not be dealt with through logic. No religions have real hard proof. The same is true with FSM. We have no proof that it is or is not the truth, therefore, it is inappropriate to label is as a parody religion. At one point, Scientology would have been labeled a parody. I have noticed that you have not made this argument on the Scientology article talk page. Why is this? I can only assume that it is because it would be considered "insensitive" because many more people follow it as a religion. What number of followers must a religion have to no longer be considered a "parody religion?" If you argue that no one follows FSM, or that anyone who does is joking, you are committing a high act of religions intolerance. Nicholas SL Smith 23:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, they're commiting a high act of "sanity". Anyone who argues that FSM is in any way a real religion, or should be treated as such, is a troll. — Matt Crypto 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What actually matters here is that FSM is widely considered by newsmedia and other sources to be a parody and it's therefore entirely appropriate to call it such in the article. Scientology's status and what individual editors have or have not argued on Talk:Scientology is utterly irrelevant. – Steel 23:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing Scientology's status; I'm using it as an analogy. So, how is it irrelevant? Why consider this in a closed universe? We should allow new religions -- not condemn them because they are new or because news media condemns them. We should speak impartially, and present information about religions, not judge them. I'm simply asking for the argument for labeling it this, a rebuttal of my earlier statement. Nicholas SL Smith 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a tertiary source that merely reports and compiles information on what others have said. It is not our place to engage in original research of this sort. – Steel 00:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow this is great - Thanks, I totally didn't know that Mr. Editor. (please pardon the sarcasm, I apologize but I'm leaving it to show my discontent with your lack of respect). Did you notice that I am asking for a reason that we deem it appropriate to label this as a Parody? I have seen news report after news report calling Islam or Christianity violent religions which reek havoc on humanity, BUT, we all agree that it is inappropriate to include these reports or descriptions within respective articles. I have made neither a request nor assertion for or of any independent research. All I have asked for is an attempt for impartiality or a reason for the lack thereof. Having worked as a curator and interpreter for a city museum, I know that we must strive for a minimal level or interpretation or "tinting" if information during the process of recording, preservation, and archival. Any tinge we include will be preserved and will come through each time this information is presented as part of such information (is is merged). This talk page is not a place to become combative. It is a place we can come to a consensus and show that these issues have been considered and resolved, so, before you respond or add more to the article, please consider the broad consequences of what is shown here. Thousands of people use Wikipedia for a research tool, and internalize what is written. To recap: I want to warn that is it dangerous to label religions "parodys," regardless of the news articles cited. For example, I do not agree with the following link, but it is a news media article about Islam, and claimed flaws therof: http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines02/0615-04.htm It is inappropriate to use this to label Islam as "intolerant." We should place a high burden on labeling any religion. I want to see that this high burden is met.Nicholas SL Smith 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Snap out of it. FSM is a joke, remember? — Matt Crypto 07:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Dude, Matt, I'm bringing this up because it's important - it isn't really a joke to everyone Nicholas SL Smith 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite aware there's plenty of people who are entirely earnest about the point behind the parody, but it is still parody; there are no real believers in FSM itself, as you well know. You can make daft claims about "religious intolerance" all you like, but to do so is merely to act out the parody, and by doing so you are not editing in good faith. — Matt Crypto 18:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe in it - I honestly do - and I'm sick and tired of being made fun of by people like you. Lay off - please - I am editing in good faith and unless you have something meaningful to add - lay off my beliefs. Please, use discretion before telling me that I don't believe this like so many have before - or that it is dumb that I do because someone made it up. It's not cool. Nicholas SL Smith 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
We block trolls. Consider yourself warned. — Matt Crypto 21:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it would seem that consensus is against you as far as calling it a parody goes. Is it safe to consider this discussion closed now? – Steel 21:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Steel, agreed. Matt Crypto, we block those who become intolerant and rash during discussion. Please maintain civility and respect for others (no personal attacks); consider yourself warned. Nicholas SL Smith 22:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And of course, in the spirit of this encylcopedia's Verifiability policy (that material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source) if you are able to provide reliable third party sources that says it is a religion in the accepted sense then we could make a statement about it being considered both a parody religion and a true religion. The New York Times source we are using states "Parody is a lot of fun. And parody begets more parody, especially on the Internet. It's contagious. But has anyone ever converted to a parody religion?" Are you able to find such a source that says otherwise?--Alf melmac 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate that - I suppose that is the most straightforward reason I've seen -- but I know that there is a societal emphasis on intense levels of sensitivity to religious views. No one would disagree that a high burden should be placed on labeling of this sort. I agree with leaving it unless such references become available (not to mention, I think it's always good to keep this sort of dialogue open for others in the future who make similar claims, thanks Alf). Nicholas SL Smith 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I should like to inquire if there are any 'third-party' sources that can adamantly be shown to support the idea of the FSM being an actual religion. -EarthRise33 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen none so far. Nicholas SL Smith 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we add an excerpt of the Eight “I’d Rather You Didn’ts”?

A little while ago I added the following. (I suppose there’s some kind of approval mechanism for mischevious edits, vandalism, etc, etc, which I assume are copious! So, the wait's fine and the decision is fine, but I do ask you to consider it!)

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

I'm trying to add the following (longer version) as a boxed quote, but it's not really working out. (Please see what I'm doing on edit if you know about this stuff and have the time to help): "1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.
.
.

6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar churches/temples/mosques/shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):

  1. Ending poverty
  2. Curing diseases
  3. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
    I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

.
.

"

I want to actually learn something. And I have learned something from our article here, but, but . . . I can learn so much more if we’re not held back by artificial restraints! There seems to be a wikipedia norm: ‘Don’t include something if it’s included somewhere else, just bluebird it.’ So the article becomes primarily merely mentioning things, rather than describing and explaining things, as if we’re all done and all primary consideration is printing costs. Whereas, no, we’re very much in a process of becoming and if someone else includes something, we can include it, too, and run in friendly competition, and besides, bandwidth is cheap!

What makes our article works is that we include a good colorful drawing of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and a simple line drawing, both of them, and they kind of play off each other. The line drawing is really funny. We’re not afraid of going long, we’re letting the story unfold, and then the other pictures and descriptions, and more is better. So, I think we might be able to also include a picture of Richard Dawkins as he’s appearing on the Colbert Report (I remember when philosopher Peter Singer appeared there, and it almost worked better than a formal speech, because we humans are meaning-detectors, we can see big conceptual arcs, and on Colbert’s website there was a picture of Peter talking and it kind of showed some of his personality, it kind of added some life and spice). Can we show of picture of the band that used the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a picture from the “South Park,” episode, and so on? Yes, yes, wtih due consideration for copyrights, permissions, fair use, etc, etc., but I kind of think people might welcome the publicity and all this should be doable.

And I remind you that all writing has positive transfer, even the most formal. But please, let’s start doing the good stuff.

Talk to me as easily and casually as if we were friendly acquaintances taking a drive with plenty of time and I was genuinely interested in the subject. Which I am! FriendlyRiverOtter 22:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This kind of thing is simple fancruft and very little discussion is needed before someone like myself removes it. Shoehorn 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I cannot argue with a label FriendlyRiverOtter 05:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Shoehorn, newbies require patience. There surely must have been thousands of possible ways at your disposal to inform FriendlyRiverOtter of the policy on fancruft. I can't begin to imagine why you chose such a curt and impolite one. Kasreyn 00:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the very concept of "fancruft." All we've essentially done is to have invented a new swear word, complete with derivatives such as "crufty." At which point of course, thought stops. It's like calling something "socialized medicine." Well, that's it. That's the end of the conversation. The conversation is now officially over.
The details are what makes something interesting! For example, if we're writing about Three Mile Island, the article is going to remind people of things they probably already know, and then it will hopefully include some things they did not previously know. That's a good article. And it takes a fine touch to know which details to include and which not to include. Sometimes you're going to go one way, sometimes the other. And it's acceptable to make mistakes, in both directions. Writing is hard work, and we're all going to make mistakes from time to time. People--myself fully included!--should not be lambasted. No one should be excessively criticized. FriendlyRiverOtter 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The "I'd Rather You Didn'ts" are trivial bits of fictional absurdity which add no real value to an article already filled with sufficient nonsense. If you want an afternoon full of mild amusement, go buy the book. And if want to contribute to WP articles, be prepared for other people to edit your changes. It would also be useful if you could distinguish between "writing" and simple "copy-and-pasting". Shoehorn 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
You do realize, I hope, that the article is bound to be full of nonsense as the subject matter is a work of deliberate farce, right? Because try as I might, I can't interpret your remarks as anything but an unconstructive attempt to drive away a new editor. I don't see how that is helpful. Kasreyn 15:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Provided that we use a good succinct version for the introduction, and provided that we keep the rest of our article divided into sections, I do not understand why we would be against a long article. FriendlyRiverOtter 18:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is interesting only because it is an argument against teaching non-science in science schools. The specifics of the 'religion' are far, far less important than the general point of it. As such, I oppose adding, as Shoehorn called it, trivial bits of fictional absurdity. Anyone interested in more than the general point can visit the article concerning the eight-whatsits directly. -- Ec5618 18:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

NASA captures the Flying Spaghetti Monster on film!

Explain that non-believers! [6] Xulorg

Thanks - fab photo! Sophia 10:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
That is just creepy... I'm a believer!! SGGH speak! 22:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait.... this is by NASA, we could use this somewhere :P SGGH speak! 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Glorious, I love it:P

Mr.troughton 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Template

Found this template for anyone interested in using it petedavo 15:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

{{User:Xaosflux/UBX/User flying spaghetti monster}}

This user has been touched by His Noodly Appendage.
(edited for format + added {{tlu}} version) --h2g2bob (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Spaghediety

I have added the alternate name "Spaghediety" to the article due to it's occasional use throughout the Gospel of the FSM to describe the FSM. ---Osho-Jabbe 22:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The term gets 12 google hits. Do you have any reliable sources? Please see WP:NEO. Weregerbil 10:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If you spell it right (deity is spelt wrong) it gets over 900. You are teh l00z. 65.60.208.212 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(I spelt it wrong; it is 'spaghedeity'.) I stated previously that I saw the term used in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Which, being the religious text for Pastafarianism, I would assume is a reliable source. I will however flip through the book again to find some page numbers, and sample text. ---Osho-Jabbe 00:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On page 25 of the Gospel of the FSM, in the chapter 'What's the Matter with Evolution?', there is a section near the bottom of the page titled "The Spaghedeity." Which, aside from being an instance of the term 'spaghedeity', also contains usages of the word within the section. ---Osho-Jabbe 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to triple post but, would it be acceptable to re-include the term spaghedeity in the article? I believe it gets pas the reliable source test, but am hesitant to add it without a general consensus on whether the term could be included. ---Osho-Jabbe 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

'agree' what ever one thinks of the religion / parody as an encyclopedia 'facts', information and knowledge are paramount.--Edmund Patrick 12:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If you cite it to the "gospel" itself there isn't much a need to build a concensus, as it becomes pretty indisputable fact, go for it. SGGH speak! 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pirate graph image

The old version of the pirate graph was switched to a shiny new verson. While the new version looks better, I'd like to switch back to the old version which is more authentic because to comes from the Open Letter. Would anyone object? --h2g2bob (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Less (skull and crossbone) is more (noodly goodness), no objections here.--Alf melmac 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Very good - I'll change it --h2g2bob (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too wordy

Several details are repeated multiple times. I think the article could stand some cleanup. Marzolian 17:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians

As you all may already be aware, Category:Psuedoreligionist Wikipedians and its subcategories, including Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians, have been deleted. That deletion is now up for review. If you have anything you'd like to say on the subject, now is the time. If you know of any other editors who might have something to say on the subject, pass the word.  — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 10:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hare Krishnas

Hey guys. I don't even know where to put this on the Talk page, cos it's huge. But anyway, if you're going to mention Krishna on the page, would you mind being accurate? "Hare Krishnas" isn't the name of the religion. It's Vaishnava. "Hare Krishna" are two words out of one of our mantras. So if you're going to go there, and i don't know why you did, you may as well be respectful in your disrespect by using the right terminology. And if you're just trying to be funny by throwing in buzz words, would you mind not? Starting misinformation mudslinging to prove atheist points with people who don't want to be a part of it is just rude. Thanks.Joyan 15:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambig link to International Society for Krishna Consciousness - Nigosh 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't cite wikipedia pages, that is just circular Dkriegls 23:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Here [7], Use of the term Hare Krishnas as a group is correctDkriegls 23:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
But is it ALL Vaishnavas who go around spreading lies about pirates, or only the Gaudiya Vaishnavas? After all, we wouldn't want to go around spreading misinformation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.60.55.9 (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In legal doc

I've removed the following text, added by 68.167.19.18 (talk · contribs):

  • A lawyer made reference to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a footnote to a legal document filed in the New York County Supreme Court:[This quote needs a citation]

I can't find anything about it online, and it isn't specific enough to verify by other means (such as by getting the court documents). I've asked 68.167.19.18 where the info came from, otherwise it should probably be removed. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: It's Own Section?

With all the debate over whether or not this should be cited as a proper religion, as some users say that people actually claim to believe what is considered by others a parody religion, I wondered what peoples' thoughts were on creating a section in the article about the claim that some people believe it and are insulted by it's parody status?

Mr.troughton 17:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. Things that happen on WP talk pages are not notable as topics for main space. So far, as has been pointed out above, there are no reports of such thoughts except self-reporting by outraged, typically anonymous IP address editors here. That does not constitute verifiable information. I'm sure you suggest it out of a generous motive to display all viewpoints, but WP:NPOV is not about displaying all viewpoints. It's about displaying all viewpoints which are noteworthy and can be verifiably sourced. Cheers, Kasreyn 05:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Chill, just a suggestion.

Mr.troughton 18:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Kasreyn took it as such. I oppose for the same reasons and sincerely hope that the people claiming to really believe in FSM just don't know when to stop or spoil a good satire. Cheers. Malc82 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

More things I changed

I've made some edits to the page: most is moving stuff about, but I changed a few bits too. There are one or two bits I should flag up:

  • I added that it is a Reductio ad absurdum argument. Googling suggests a fair number who agree with me, but I haven't found an authoritative source yet. Please post your thoughts on that claim.
  • The Kansas evolution hearings - I assume these are the ones referred to at the start of the Open Letter ("I am writing ... having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution."). The letter was sent January 2005, and the hearings were in May 2005, so it looks like the dates fit. However, confirmation on that one would be useful.

Yours, --h2g2bob (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FSM logo2.svg

Image:FSM logo2.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

...

Is this really true? I've never heard of it, and it sounds like a hoax. Flying Spaghetti Monster? If it was realy, they'd make a better name for it. This is an example of people who put false things on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.242.113 (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question about whether it should be included, I ask you how is it any less a religion than Christianity? Judaism? Islam? Do we count the subscribers to each? What is the threshold for it to be "real"? -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 17:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, actually, it is less of a religion than the above, and I say that as a Pastafarian. There's still been zero documentation of a serious Pastafarian ritual or gathering of folks who literally do believe the FSM created the world beginning with mountains, trees, and a midgit.
However, much like A Modest Proposal or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, it's a famous parody of various things and therefore fits in Wikipedia. We cover lots of fictional things here and plenty of more obscure things; just because you, original anon poster, have never heard of it doesn't mean it's something false in the sense you seem to be using it. --Sparky Lurkdragon 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously not a Reductio ad absurdum, as you would know if you looked at the definition on Wikipedia

The Reductio ad absurdum, otherwise known as "argument by contradiction" or "proof by contradiction" in mathematics, means that you assume a statement to be true for arguments sake, logically derive a contradiction of known truth from the "assumed true" statement, and thereby prove that the "assumed true" statement cannot be true. I read the open letter, and it best presents a few false analogies and straw man arguments. If you can actually give the statement that is being "assumed true" and the train of logic which leads from this "assumed true" statement to a contradiction of something known to be true, then fine. Otherwise, don't call the letter a Reductio ad absurdum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 01:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, though, a Reductio ad absudum, because it mimics the same claims by the Christian apologists it targets for ridicule, changing the wording and 'evidence' slightly to support the existence of a flying pasta deity. You see the same claims of 'planting fossils,' the same selective information interpretation (in the pirates vs climate graph), and the like. Apologists 'assume' these arguments are truths that favor the Christian-Judeo God. This letter hijacks the arguments in favor of the FSM. -EarthRise33 02:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you allow one faith-based dogma (creationism) into a science class you have to include them all - but that is impractical. Hence reductio ad absurdum. -Noel darlow 01:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

christian blasphemy

I can't speak to how many people take this seriously or not. This is not an entry in the "is it parody" multi-thread. Irrespective of how serious people take FSM, one thing might be worthy of mention is that it's pretty clearly an attempt to hijack christian words, images, and patterns that is blasphemous and hurtful to an awful lot of people. Of course making a big deal about FSM's blasphemy may not be strategically wise and many christian advocates may not address FSM and pastafarianism (sp?) for that reason but I don't think you've got an NPOV article here without at least addressing the issue.

Pastafarianism is very likely going to continue to virtually ignore islamic creationism as opposed to christian creationism as it's rather safer to challenge the literalist christian than the literalist muslim. As such it cannot be seen as a simple, even handed parody against religious creationism. Its anti-christian character should be noted. Whether it is purposefully or accidentally anti-christian might also be a worthy point to bat around. TMLutas 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

When fundamentalist Muslims (or Hindus or Ásatrúarmaður or any other such group of believers) make a creditable attempt in the United States at supplanting scientifically supported facts with their religious doctrines, I have faith that His Noodly Goodness will embrace them and that Pastafarianism will grow to refute their illogic as well. Until then, only fundamentalist Christians have made such attempts, and the teaching of the Flying Spaghetti Monster reflect this. TechBear 00:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Boy are you behind the times. Here's something from a quick google "Pressure to teach creationism is weaker in Europe, but has been mounting. An Assembly committee took up the issue because a shadowy Turkish Muslim publishing group has been sending an Islamic creationist book to schools in several countries." [8] Some muslim group's been donating an islamic creationist opus to libararies all across the US.
In any case, similar attacks on islamic creation would only add a section, not eliminate the need for a section on the FSM's blasphemous impacts. As a satire, it isn't particularly independent of pre-existing texts and thus it's legitimate to comment on the reaction from the faith that FSM's been borrowing from. TMLutas 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
TMLutas, if I follow correctly, you are not happy that Pastafarians are largely ignoring Muslim creationism. This arises because, given the location in which FSMism thrives, Muslim creationism and varieties therein are not a threat to scientific instruction to the extent that Christian creationism is. FSMism was founded as a criticism of *local* religious dogmatism.
Also, the words hijacked are hijacked from arguments in favor of Intelligent Design, and the resemblance to Christian doctrine is inevitable, because the Intelligent Design movement that cranks in the United States is essentially a Christian movement, founded upon a belief in Jesus Christ and a need to support certain literal truths of the Bible. Pastafarianism cannot help if some Christians have beliefs so delicate that they are offended by a parody intended for a political movement. -EarthRise33 13:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
EarthRise33 - My argument in this forum is not that I think that "pastafarianism" should mock islam more so you have missed the entire point. I am saying that from a conventional christian viewpoint the whole ball of wax is blasphemous and that it isn't just a case that "pastafarianism" is evenly anti-theist and the christians are just getting their fair share of lumps. Were "pastafarianism" evenly anti-theist you could make a case that a specifically christian rebuttal section would not be warranted. Not addressing this point make the article depart from NPOV by not representing what a significant stream of opinion on the subject. Thus a short section on the offensiveness of this joke even to christian denominations like Catholicism who have no doctrinal problems whatsoever with evolution is justified and unless I get a good argument over why it shouldn't be included it will be forthcoming. TMLutas 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree that your argument has merit. The only organizations I have heard to call the FSM blasphemous are those fundamentalist organizations who have been pushing (Christian) creationism. If you wish to alter the article to cite a more widespread perception of blasphemy, you will need to provide cites showing such a widespread perception. Keep in mind, the FSM is not "designed" (sorry, couldn't resist) to be a refutation of theism. It is designed to be a refutation of a literalist and very narrowly defined aspect of theology held by a small but very vocal subset of theists who, in the country where the FSM first made an appearance, are overwhelmingly Christian. Perhaps this point needs to be made more clear, but I think the issues you are raising are actually non-issues. TechBear 21:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, sure I'd have to have cites. What section entry into a wikipedia article doesn't have to have cites? But even you (and I doubt you've looked hard for it) are aware of groups that have labeled FSM and "pastafarianism" blasphemous. The standard for inclusion is notability and evidence of notability needs to come from reliable sources. It doesn't particularly matter what the intent is. One can be blasphemous by accident as anybody who has yelped out "God damn" when they hit their thumb with a hammer should know. The issue that I'm raising is an NPOV issue. Obviously "pastafarianism" is not a controversy free concept. Where's the other side? TMLutas 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is that the 'other side' of which you speak is irrelevant to the issue argued by the existence of Pastafarianism. -EarthRise33 14:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a, at the very least in part, political movement to influence US political decisions on science curriculum. Irrelevance is a very hard case to make in that context as Gary Hart, Larry Craig, Ted Kennedy, Rev. Swaggart, and a large category of political actors of all stripes could tell you. The effectiveness of a point is influenced by how the point is made. That's the relevance. Hearing about "pastafarianism" is going to generate ire among lots of people who have no inherent problem with evolution. Mostly, we get over it without discussing in detail but to leave it unmentioned is simply not NPOV. TMLutas 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Negative. Many Christians already embrace the concept of the FSM, since they have the sense of humor to appreciate its core message. Agreed, this is a sociopolitical movement to encourage a rejection of Intelligent Design. For this reason, I should gladly contribute a section detailing the complaints issued by the Discovery Institute that pertain to the ID movement and the FSM's mockery of it. Those who find offense are usually the ones who can't comprehend that FSMism is a parody, not a true religion. -EarthRise33 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't the concept itself of a thought experiment using a made up deity that's the trouble for most christians (though I've no doubt that there *are* Orthodox who have a problem with FSM as a concept). Jokes and even exploration of alternate possibilities are usually permissible. But you don't get to photoshop in your deity into the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel unless you wish to offend. It's viewed as wrong by an awful lot of people and that current of opinion deserves a small section explaining the carelessness of the "pastafarians" and their fundamental laziness in borrowing largely Catholic imagery. It's a sort of backhanded insult of a cultural patrimony of 2 millenia that is what I'm talking about. TMLutas 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless I wish to offend? Given that some Christians indulge in jokes poked at the Messiah, I think your criticism is misguided. However, as I'm suggesting below, if you can find something beyond personal research and independent opinions to back up the 'blasphemous" nature, sure, why not add a section. But mentioning the 'carelessness' and 'laziness' certainly shall not happen, because, frankly, claims of such a nature stem only from a complete ignorance of the claims of FSMism. -EarthRise33 20:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Concurrence with TechBear, and further development along the lines that you are confusing the intent of Pastafarianism, TML, as would be those organizations that get offended at it. FSMism is a criticism of intelligent design functioning as science. An alternate theist perspective is enough of a criticism of theism. By all means, Islam is 'blasphemous' in the face of Christianity. So is Buddhism, Hinduism, UUism, Discordianism, and every -ism at infinitum that doesn't agree with Christianity. Ironically enough, this is the definition of blasphemy.
FSMism is a social criticism, not a religious one. Period. -EarthRise33 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
You do have a point that exclusivist religious systems view all other such systems as blasphemous on one level or another. It is rather irrelevant because it's an argument for adding sections to other articles and not omitting the addition here. NPOV does not argue that we should ignore criticism because it would imply a lot of work. Eventually if this article develops, you could split the critique of pastafarianism out to a separate article but for a topic so small in size it makes little sense to have two articles. TMLutas 20:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

So shall we add the obvious observations to every religious article on Wikipedia? "This religion is not like the others, so, naturally, the others call it blasphemy." Stating the brutally apparent is not necessary. Of course a derivative of a religion is going to spark controversy. Unfortunately, that controversy has nothing to do with the intent of Pastafarianism; indeed, it is thoroughly irrelevant, since, again, Pastafarianism is a social parody, not a religious one. Since Pastafarianism makes no intent to mock religions, there need be no commentary on the religious response to it. What would be appropriate, however, would be responses by the Intelligent Design community, responses that pertain to the 'scientific' claims shared by both ID and FSMism. But making the comment that a scientific lampoon draws the ire of IDers is akin to mentioning that every new fossil on earth draws the ire of Creationists. Should we include the Discovery Institute's response in the article for the tiktaalik? Of course not. -EarthRise33 23:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going to Wikify your mention of the article for the tiktaalik but it seemed more polite to post a response instead. Fascinating article; I'd never heard of this critter before. I think "ire of Creationists" is a bit of an understatement, though. TechBear 02:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
EarthRise33 - Social parodies may or may not be blasphemous. It depends on how they're done. The 'pastafarians' seem to be drawn to the Catholic art well, on one level understandable because it's a huge pool of images and they're incredibly beautiful. But Catholicism's concept of creationism, that God Created as He created and the methodology He used may be evolution should be one of the least objectionable out there for evolutionary theory advocates. So what's with all the Cistine Chapel photoshops? Why pick on the Catholics? TMLutas 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't 'picking on the Catholics,' as you may desire to assert. Jansson created the image, and it happened to be the earliest and best graphic piece that a) was well-known, popular, and highly recognizable; and b) included the FSM. The reason for its use lies in the fact that the ceiling is, as I stated, a hallmark piece of Michelangelo, not that it is Catholic. Try again. -EarthRise33 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I very rarely "desire to assert" without actually asserting. The only case that I can think of me doing that was during a period of civil disorder in Bucharest 1990 as I wanted to avoid a beating. You don't qualify for that level of restraint, a fact that relieves us both no doubt.
Sorry, was there a point to mentioning your activity in protests?-EarthRise33 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I was making fun of the awkward phrase. It's weasel wording and deserves a poke. TMLutas 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you under the impression that somehow Michaelangelo is not Catholic or that his artwork can somehow be separated from his catholicity? The Cistine Chapel is in Vatican City and is the personal church of the Pope. I'm not quite sure how one can make a disrespectful parody using that image and not be anti-Catholic. Perhaps you can walk me through the procedure because truly and honestly I just don't get how such a thing is possible. That people generally have forgiven the offense (pastafarian blasphemy of this nature is on a very long list which has many worse things and which is added to daily) does not mean that it is somehow respectful and ok. TMLutas 17:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm... well, yeah, I am under the impression that his artwork can—and has been—separated from the fact that its artist was Catholic. The Sistine may very well be for the Pope's use, but that image is certainly not under any copyright claims by the RCC, last time I checked. The religious connotation of it has little relevance since the image has been circulated so pervasively.
And, furthermore, you seem to be missing the intent... again. Pastafarianism has no beef with the RCC, no need to defile artwork as a manner of insult. You want to think that FSMism is this grand scheme to offend as many religions as possible. 'The Creation of Adam' was convenient and recognizable, and that serves as the reason for its use. No other reason can apply. If anything, Pastafarians are more appreciative of the RCC than any other church, since the Pope himself has declared evolution a viable method of creation. -EarthRise33 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be under the impression that blasphemy is a function of copyright law. Don't embarrass yourself further on that point, please.
The images from the Sistine Chapel are profoundly religious art. Using them in this way is legal in many jurisdictions (don't try blatantly circulating that image in KSA though). That does not mean that such use is not blasphemous and mentioning the adherents of "pastafarianism" are regularly shading over into blasphemy from a mainstream christian perspective is not a violation of NPOV.
If "pastafarianism" were a real religion instead of a parody, it might have actual opinions, dogma, and all the rest. It could have a "beef" with a different faith. But long strings of text have pretty much established that, no, it's a joke, a parody, not something to be taken seriously, a teaching tool against the 'fundies' in defense of evolution, etc. So essentially "pastafarianism" is an empty vessel, a carrier of whatever the actual beliefs of the individual telling the joke. And if you take a moment to think about it, I believe you'll agree. Jokes do not have dogmas.
After all this resistence, I have come to believe that some "pastafarians" think that anti-catholicism is funny and examining the topic seems to make a bunch of people (pretty much everybody who's commented on this) uncomfortable. I can't imagine why, if I can come up with reliable sources, a section on controversy associated with a joke seems to put so many noses out of joint. TMLutas 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, jokes do not have dogmas. There is no declared hatred for Catholics. Individuals in the Pastafarian vein may indeed find Catholics repulsive - indeed, I have met several - but others in the parody religion are actually Catholics, surprisingly enough, and they find no reason to be offended. They, you see, have a sense of humor. So, essentially, 'anti-Catholicism' lies in the behaviors of the constituents, but not in the religion itself. If you wish to use this as an argument, we might as well cite protests that Christianity is racist because the KKK claim to be of that faith.
"Pastafarians" have just as much responsibility as anybody else to reign in their associated bigots, kooks, and nuts. When they fail to do so. When you get 3D animations of FSM explicitly denying the Holy spirit as part of a blasphemy challenge this has exactly zero to do with evolution and judging by the comments on that video, nobody has a problem with its 'loud and proud' blasphemy. The christian/KKK relationship is very different. Mainstream christians have a long history of opposing the KKK. In fact, Catholics are on the 'b' list of KKK enemies so your analogy doesn't work at all in reality but boy does it sound truthy. TMLutas 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This entire premise of 'reeling in' the fringe only works if the organization is actually organized, which, frankly, Pastafarianism is not. It consists of a core of Pastafarians who understand the claims, and a number of people who adopt the FSM as another version of the IPU. -EarthRise33 04:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
"pastafarianism" seems about as organized as Islam (the least centralized of the monotheistic faiths) so I see no particular difficulty in keeping discipline. If I were seeing "pastafarians" argue for and against blasphemous usage, the inefficacy of the anti-blasphemy arguments might pull some weight. The reality is that it's all one sided. Any discipline on blasphemous "pastafarianism" seems to be applied externally, and precious little at that. It is, after all, a joke. It does, however, seem to be less out of favor than kike, nigger, and amputee jokes. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Muslims actually have a voice of authority which they heed. And I take it you don't actually look into Pastafarian interactions. As it were, I myself am a Pastafarian and indeed argue against the use of the FSM in any case other than an ID debate. But the main point here is there exists no 'church' of the FSM; there are no formal guidelines, there are no actual priests. It is one-sided because you haven't looked on the other side. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Individuals who adhere to the muslim faith often have a voice of authority that they believe but muslims as a group have no pope, no patriarch, no hierarchy outside the very recent and oddball case of Khomeinist Iran. TMLutas 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want a reason for our resistance, we find that your need to point out controversy stems from an urgent offense taken to the FSM, which inherently suggests that you have completely missed the point of Pastafarianism. -EarthRise33 20:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the offense is not urgent, nor did I ever say it was urgent. There's this whole "defining deviancy down" motif that I am getting generally annoyed with in society. "Pastafarianism" and it's casual blasphemies are just an example of a much larger trend. People tend to only push back at the boundaries of offense and eventually they tire. If anything beyond my stated desire to improve the NPOVness of the article, this is a thought experiment in a sort of "broken windows" crime prevention strategy as applied to blasphemy. It's important *because* it's unimportant just as Rudy Giuliani's crusade against squeegee men in NYC had effects far broader than most people ever dreamed. TMLutas 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The whole concept that "defining deviancy down" is wrong is based on the implicit assumption that "deviancy" is evil, so that anything that fails to consider it evil is in effect assisting in evil. I reject this concept; "deviancy" simply means something that deviates from that which is commonly found, but since what is common might be a bad flavor of "groupthink" itself, deviating from it might just be a good thing. Anyway, a NPOV article must not take a position for or against the "norm" or the "deviants". *Dan T.* 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You have an undeveloped sense of the problem of deviancy. Deviation from an evil norm may be viewed as deviancy as much as deviation from a moral norm. The citizens of Sodom were outraged at the deviancy of Lot, for example. I'm bothering (and boy did I think this point was going to take less time when I started out) because having a one way ratchet effect on this type of system is ultimately unsustainable and the backlash effect is rather painful. This subject seems unimportant enough that it's worth the experiment. As I said above, it's important *because* it's unimportant. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Deviancy is sustainable as long as it damages no one. Ergo, deviency from an evil norm is essential, and deviency from what you call a 'good' norm (which is highly variable in itself, and a subject of a non-neutral point of view, so you're really being subjective here) is okay provided it harms no one. And the FSM harms no one. It only offends those who choose to be offended by it. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
For God's sake, man, are you proposing adding this because you are personally offended? For that is what this passage suggests. People will always push at the boundaries of what is considered 'blasphemy,' and always someone will find offense for it. A general social commentary is hardly necessary. -EarthRise33 04:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but you've got to start somewhere and guess which subject won the kewpie doll. I actually started getting personally offended when I ran across "the blasphemy challenge" and the FSM entry into that nasty bit of work so I didn't come into this as some sort of bluestocking. But even if I did, NPOV demands the accommodation of bluestockings as much as libertines. If not, what does NPOV mean? TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
So, what, you style yourself a saint now? That which is considered blasphemy is subjective, and your emotions have no place in an objective encyclopedia. The blasphemy challenge is irrelevant to the issue, and there is no reason we should pay attention to you because your were emotionally frayed by the existence of a parody religion. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Good Lord, of course I'm not a saint. I'd pray more and post less if I were. I style myself as a wikipedia editor trying to break into the miasma of "pastafarian" fanboyism here and bring this article closer to NPOV. Blasphemy in some marginal cases is subjective but certainly not participating in a "blasphemy challenge" where the explicit point is to blaspheme. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt. TMLutas 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether something is blashpemous completeley depends on your point of view, so it would be out of place for this encyclopedia to use that label. Obviously, FSM parodies aspects of the christian faith more than others. I think that fact is apparent from reading the article, even without explicitly saying so. The reader can make up their own minds whether FSM is "blasphemous" or "anti-christian". If notable opinions about FSM surface, they might be worthy of inclusion, but I don't think that there any notable and verifable opinions like that out there right now. -- Diletante 02:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You obviously can't declare a value judgment in the name of wikipedia but that's not what I'm talking about. You certainly can accurately report the value judgments of notable individuals and groups about a parody. Churches do have judicial systems. They have rules on determining what is or is not blasphemy. It is not a violation of NPOV to note these rules and how "pastafarianism" shades over into blasphemy on a pretty frequent basis. The rules and their application inside church judicial systems are objective facts. Now how one does it so that it is a small section in a larger article and doesn't unjustly dominate it is very much up for grabs. TMLutas 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Mmkays, so how about this: there will be a section detailing a declaration of blasphemy if you can find a relevant church that has declared the FSM to be a blasphemy. No individuals' opinions, no personal research, all that fun NPOV stuff. I think everyone can agree that this is a suitable possiblity. -EarthRise33 20:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we're almost home free on the preliminary round. I think you are improperly limiting things to formal judicial decisions. If a cardinal wrote about FSM and condemned its misappropriation of Catholic imagery and beliefs as blasphemy without bothering to lay it before his diocesan tribunal, I think that it would merit inclusion even absent a full judicial case running through a Church tribunal and establishing a formal, mandatory position on FSM. You would need a reasonable definition of who is notable in this case but I think that common sense can prevail here. TMLutas 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope; that would be the opinion of one person. The only NPOV-defensible inclusion that you can use is a church with a judicial system ruling that declares FSM a blasphemy, since that is the only statement that can be slightly removed from opinion given its authority and process. One cardinal's whinging cannot suffice.
And common sense declares no need for claims of blasphemy, so 'common sense' shall be no standard in this issue. -EarthRise33 13:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The opinions of notable individuals commenting in their field of expertise do count see Wp:rs#What_is_a_reliable_source.3F for the details. Like everything else in Wikipedia, the standard can be modified but it would be a *very* brave man who tried to touch that one. Please do not try to tighten up standards of what is ok in an article beyond the guidelines. That tends to produce bad results. So far, I've got the youtube video I linked to above and a ref to a Discovery Institute rant against FSM on christian grounds. That's still thin for a new section but that does make it two independent sources to support a blasphemy claim. FSM does not have a court system to sort out what's in "pastafarianism" and what is not so a video and approving commentary by "pastafarians" qualifies as being part of the expertise as probably does the Discovery Institute bit. Before I write something up I'd like a little bit more because I've no doubt that there's going to be a winnowing attempt or ten when I finally do get around to writing about it. TMLutas 19:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord does nobody else see the irony in citing NPOV to justify a determined attempt to express a critical point of view? That's for your personal website TMLutas. - Noel darlow 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If it were my opinion, you would be absolutely right. My literary accomplishments are the occasional 'a' list blog linkage (I'm currently on the front page of instapundit) and a footnote in one book on my ruminations regarding 1st world responsibility for 3rd world society pathology. That makes *my* opinion non-notable. John Shelby Spong (who probably would love FSM) is a different case entirely. If FSM blasphemy opinion were coming from a notable theologian, priest, or other subject matter expert, this is rather a different matter. That's in the guideline and I expect the guidelines to be followed in any article I come across. I hope you're in agreement on following guidelines. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement that you appear determined to insert your own point of view. People can decide for themselves if they think FSM is blasphemous and they can comment as they choose on their own websites if they feel the need.
This is somewhat akin to deciding whether OJ really did it. While there is certainly room for discussion, there's an independent reality out there that does not yield to any particular discussion. More importantly for wikipedia, the norm in this project is to include sections on both opinions. TMLutas 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
A quick comment on this: OJ had a substantial debate over his trial. We have... well, your complaints in the issue of the FSM. And Wikipedia says that tiny minority viewpoints shall be irrelevant. Look it up. 'Both opinions' means a substantial minority. -EarthRise33 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Or.. maybe we can negotiate. You've mentioned you're a catholic: I'll agree to you detailing the blasphemous nature of FSM on the FSM page provided I can add a section to the catholicism page on the theme of the intellectual offensiveness of supernatural beliefs: miracles, angels, an afterlife, and so forth. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? - Noel darlow 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Neither of us controls *any* pages on wikipedia so permission either way is moot. There are an abundance of articles on critiques of Catholicism in wikipedia already and if you want to add some sort of scientism oriented one it won't particularly offend me. TMLutas 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology." This, along with 'significant minority views,' pretty much nullifies the inclusion of a person's opinion, for one bishop commenting is indeed an extremely minor view (a 'tiny minority view,' you might say. Only the Church can be considered conclusively 'authoritative'). However, the Discovery Institute may be applicable, though I shall ensure that a notation is included that a the DI has not made any response to the veracity of the claims of Pastafarianism, since that is, indeed, more relevant than their delicate religious sensitivities. -EarthRise33 04:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense that actually rests on a misunderstanding of the word Church in Catholicism. As an aside, each bishop has certain rights which cannot be stripped and is thus somewhat sovereign in his own diocese. You might want to meditate on how the Church at large escaped from Arianism to understand the actual power balance inside it a bit better.
But there's no need to limit ourselves to Catholicism. I'm Catholic and thus I'm more likely to come up with Catholic sources due to pure familiarity but I don't limit myself to that source. I'm not coming at this as a Catholic apologist (though I am a Catholic apologist). I am coming at this as a wikipedia editor who doesn't see anything other than puff piece stuff in this entry and that's not quite NPOV. TMLutas 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I actually do understand the word Church, because I have been instructed on the nature of the Church by - ironically enough - a Catholic Pastafarian. Diocese nonwithstanding, the bishop is still one (1) man with a complaint against something he probably doesn't grasp, which is still a 'tiny minority.'
Now, I'm open to the idea of mentioning other claims of blasphemy - if you can find the sources saying the various churches have decided, based on democracy or whatever decision process they utilize, that FSM is blasphemous. I'm not restricting this to Catholicism; I only address that since you brought it up. So far, you have the DI, and if your source is the same as mine, that isn't even an official position taken by the DI: it's an editorial on some Christmas offenses posted by Casey Luskin in a blog, hardly a definitive source. -EarthRise33 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've met catholic masons. Their opinion of the compatibility of those two associations does not change the teaching of the Church which is that it is an excommunicable association (specifically automatic excommunication) for a latin rite catholic to join the freemasons. Just because "pastafarian" catholics exist does not make their teaching authoritative. The radically decentralized nature of the FSM meme is a different organizing principle.
The whole "blasphemy challenge" thing is *explicitly blasphemous". That's the entire point of it. It's not original research to point that out nor is it WP:OR to point out the "pastafarian" participation in that challenge associates the joke with that blasphemy until such time as the association is rejected. Shrugging your shoulders and not mentioning it is not really an option over the long haul. The "hell song" bit I've linked up also falls under the same category. The joke can remain a joke aimed at the ID crowd but what seems to be happening is a morph into anti-christian mockery with little connection to ID. That's worth noting. TMLutas 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Why? Is it frequently discussed in notable publications, or is it your own observation? There's a danger that Wikipedia articles will get filled with peoples' pet takes on topics unless we insist that the content is regulated by sources. — Matt Crypto 18:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It is impossible to understand why somebody might get angry about "pastafarianism" without at least a brief discussion about how some "pastafarians" are using the joke as cover for anti-christian attacks and blasphemy. In other words, you can't understand the phenomenon in a neutral way without giving the other side at least a section to explain why the thing's offensive. TMLutas 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This sounds an awful lot like personal research, ya know. The use of the FSM as a modern version of 'Russell's Teapot' covers the entirety of this claim. -EarthRise33 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of "have my cake and eat it too" in this joke. At times Henderson seems to have claimed that he's only going after ID and has nothing against religion so long as it does not improperly interfere with science. At other times it's open season on christians and FSM is Russell's teapot reborn. You cannot have both in the same framework so which is it? TMLutas 08:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You keep on using Bobby's name as though he has a leash on followers. "He" has nothing against religion. Other constituents may or may not, and they are using it as Russell's teapot in novel style. Bobby, AFAIK, has acted completely within the realm of ID. -EarthRise33 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, individual participation by Pastafarians is not condoned, appreciated, or even recognized by the Pastafarian 'church,' so this connection has no relevance. -EarthRise33 13:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You are not Bobby Henderson. Bobby Henderson, I believe, posted one of the blasphemous items on his blog. Or am I mistaken that he runs venganza.org? What is the Church of the FSM if not Bobby Henderson's opinions and conduct? TMLutas 03:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You'll have to link that post, because I don't recall seeing it anywhere on there. Believe me, I searched the site before I made my comment about the Blasphemy Challenge. -EarthRise33 03:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
It was the hell song and the link is in the text you keep deleting. Don't you click through to see what I'm talking about before you delete? If not it would certainly explain your confusion. TMLutas 08:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
We were talking the Blasphemy Challenge, last I checked. I see the Hell song. However, stating that it is both blasphemous and an attack on Christianity is definitely POV pushing, because, frankly, it is neither, since it does not target Christianity. -EarthRise33 10:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, it's explicitly an anti-monotheist song asserting Hell doesn't exist. All that christian art floating around and of course what they're talking about is Islam. Right. TMLutas 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I must have missed that assertion; can you point it out? All I'm getting out of it is, "We are Pastafarians, we're being told we're going to Hell, so let's sing about it." Seriously, have you taken a look at the Hate Mail Bobby receives? -EarthRise33 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Argument ad absurdum, again

Do we really need attribution for the claim that the FSM is an example of argument ad absurdum? I would have thought such a statement is brutally obvious, since, as per a. ad. a., the same arguments for young-earth creationism (God planted the fossils, e.g.) are applied to Pastafarianism (FSM planted the fossils, e.g.). I propose returning it to its original state. -EarthRise33 20:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Removed it, for lack of opposition. -EarthRise33 20:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

(Cross-posted from User talk:Steel359 and User talk:EarthRise33.)
Hi. Your comments on Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster (specifically, this one) suggest that you are not entirely clear on the definition of reductio ad absurdum. Reductio involves assuming what you aim to refute for the sake of argument and deriving via formal logic something contradictory or otherwise impossible given the premises. FSM is satire and involves replacing names here and there to make the argument sound silly. Reductio ad absurdum does not simply mean "making something sound absurd" - its other name "proof by contradiction" is perhaps more descriptive. At the very, very least you will require a source per WP:V. – Steel 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, dear fellow.
I'm afraid I think you, sir, are not grasping the implications and arguments claimed by Pastafarians. I am very aware, I assure you, that reductio ad absurdum does not use absurdities to make a point (this being an appeal to ridicule), but that is not my aim. And, lest you assume, I am not one of these fellows to adamanly assert the FSM's existence. I will make no claims as to His veracity, so just follow me here.
The premise of reductio ad absurdum is, as you said, a sort of 'hijacking' of arguments used by the opposition to reach a certain end. When the argument is left incomplete, you get your standard "Hitler liked art, so art must be bad." But when complete, you get the same argumentative set leading to a conclusion that either makes no sense, or makes so little sense that its inherent ridiculous quality is realized.
This is the case with the FSM. Pastafarians use many arguments used by creationists to demonstrate an inherent faith that must be required to make the statements, in effect reducing the statements to subjective determinations and making them useless for use in a classroom. The Omphalos hypothesis is one example; Henderson said that, like God, the FSM created the fossils, earth strata, mid-route light from stars, carbon-dating readings, etc. to point out the baseless statements made by creationist opponents. The association between pirates and global temperature mocks experiments in which ID advocates have claimed to find causational prohibitions to certain events, without accounting for various other influences that may or may not have been deliberately ignored (take into account the fallacy of specified complex information).
Essentially, the arguments for the FSM are a sample of arguments otherwise used for God. The whole point here is to demonstrate that many ID claims are without foundation.
And, if you don't mind, discuss the change in the FSM discussion board, not on my Talk page. That will permit the input of other users, and will help create a consensus opinion. Until you discuss it, the statement concerning a reductio ad absurdum will remain on the page.
Regards, EarthRise33 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That's all very nice but you haven't really advanced any ground in explaining how FSM is a proof by contradiction. Example, "Henderson said that, like God, the FSM created the fossils, earth strata, mid-route light from stars, carbon-dating readings, etc. to point out the baseless statements made by creationist opponents." - yes, I agree, but this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regardless, this is veering into original research territory. Please provide a source for this disputed statement as per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thank you. – Steel 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The ground is there, but you seem to not want to stand on it. The contradiction lies in the fact that an alternate god, besides the Christian-Judeo one, was supported in the 'logical' arguments. Indeed, any creator can be substituted into the equation with these declarations; the FSM was the most absurd example Bobby Henderson wanted to pull. It does have to do with the topic at hand, but if you wish to feign ignorance at everything I say, I can't really help that.
Here is the topic at hand: FSM is a reductio ad absurdum. Here is your claim: FSM does not actually assume the same position to reach a contradictory conclusion. Here is my assertion: FSM does assume this position, and pulls off statements, from the same reasoning, that support something completely separate from what was intended.
'Original research' is not so original when the conclusion is apparent. The FSM fits into the mold of a r.a.a. argument. Try a quick Google search if you must, but the glove fits.
And stop changing the article without discussing the change on the discussion board! You have no right to modification unless a consensus on the change has been reached. Otherwise, reversions will be repeated ad infinitum, until you are banned for not following wikipedia policy. -EarthRise33 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Various points:
  1. Find. A. Source. If FSM being a proof by contradiction is so apparent as you maintain finding an authoratative source should be easy. I am honestly puzzled why you haven't simply tried this already.
  2. "Original research is not so original when the conclusion is apparent". Fair enough. Unfortunately, you cannot justify the addition of information disputed by multiple people without a source just because it seems apparent to you.
  3. Discussing on the talk page is not a prerequisite to editing Wikipedia, particularly as, in this case, there has been no previous discussion save for this very short thread. I have discussed everything with the only dissenter (you).
  4. No-one is going to be banned and petty threats will get this dispute nowhere. Since we're on a related topic, I remind you not to appeal to force.
I'll crosspost our discussions to the talk page. – Steel 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
One: There are few sources when conclusions can be derived easily and logically. The relationship between the FSM and a reductio ad absurdum is apparent; when such is the case, there is little need to reassert it.
Two: You seem to forget that you are the one disputing content that is already present. The burden of this argument rests on your shoulders, not mine.
Three: Aye, no previous discussion to remove a piece of information already present. When removing a significant point, discussion is warranted. This is why you must provide reasoning and reach a consensus.
Four: I beg your pardon? Petty threats? I am making references to past occurrences, whereby users have removed content consistently with little reasoning and, as such, been removed from the community. I have no incentive to ban you. On the contrary, I'd prefer you actually get a common agreement before acting on that which is already established.
Good day. -EarthRise33 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
(End cross-posting.)
It is not apparent else we wouldn't be having this discussion. Please find an authoratative source - the onus is very much on you.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. – Steel 20:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you allow one faith-based dogma (creationism) into a science class you have to include them all - but that is impractical. Hence reductio ad absurdum. - Noel darlow 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion (R.A.A.)

Hello, I'm responding to a Request for 3rd Opinion, and as it's my first stab I ask forgiveness in advance for any missteps. I consider myself disinterested, having only a general awareness of the FSM argument, but have taken the time to read the RAA explanation, because I find logic interesting. You be the judge of how well I employ it.

So. My opinion is that the FSM does NOT constitute RAA as defined elsewhere (wiki definition). My reasoning: RAA must use an initial acceptance of the hypothesis, and then use reason to lead to a logical contradiction, thus disproving itself. The FSM argument does not actually disprove a creator god, it only demonstrates that said god, if it exists, could as plausibly be a FSM as YHWH. It does NOT show that a YHWH hypothesis is self-contradicting (ie disproves itself), but only that it is not rationally compelling (if it proves a God, that god might just as well be made of pasta). While this strikes our sensibilities as "absurd", and this is clearly intentional, this alone does not constitute RAA in the formal sense.

To sum up: FSM doesn't prove or disprove anything - it only contends that neither do similar arguments made in support of the traditional YHWH hypothesis, which is thus incomplete. Put another way, proving something unproven is not the same as disproving it. That's what I say - how bout you? sNkrSnee | t.p. 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. Thank you. – Steel 20:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense. I'm realizing that the FSM is more of an argument to make ID supporters uncomfortable than to disprove their argument logically. I'll remove it. -EarthRise33 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we've missed the point about how RAA applies here. If you teach christian creation myths in a science class you also have to teach scientology, hinduism, cargo cults, crocodile gods and so on and so on. It's got nothing to do with disproving creationism: the absurdity is twofold. (1) It's simply impractical to squeeze the vast number of creation myths into a science curriculum. (2) ID'ers appear to be arguing "fair do's" for spirituality but obviously would be horrified to be put on an equal footing with other religions. Wicca..? - Noel darlow 02:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
sNkrSnee's point is that such an observation is not a RAA, though, but rather an appeal to discomfort. No IDer in their right mind would support teaching that a wad of spaghetti created the world, though they would turn around and teach the same faith-based belief with 'God' written in for 'FSM.' Likewise, this encourages people to realize the inherent absurdity in the ID argument. RAA would arise in a logical contradiction, which this lacks (thank you, sNkrSnee, for pointing that out). -EarthRise33 02:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
EarthRise has it exactly right, as I understand it. RAA is a logical rule of inference with a very precise definition; "absurd" is a subjective quality. Many things that most people would consider absurd could not be characterized as RAA, including FSM.
I also think that ER's observation that FSM is an "appeal to discomfort" is correct, which led me to reflect that it may be inappropriate to apply logical categorizations to it, as I interpret its intent to be more rhetorical than logical. After all, are FSM proponents really, sincerely advocating that God exists as a cosmic noodle? Or are they employing satire as a (classical) rhetorical device to say: "If you can't prove it's not a spaghetti monster, how can you begin to prove it's your specific God?". Which really makes it an empirical critique of the overall lack of persuasive evidence for any given hypothesis.
Also, I've really enjoyed participating in this discussion. Thanks for making it so pleasant. sNkrSnee | t.p. 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please...

Please use the talk page before deleting people's work. For example, some of my work was deleted where I tried to correct a spelling error. Wolfdog 02:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's cool, I corrected a few of the remaining errors that you mentioned. -EarthRise33 03:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Pirate chart?

This particular phrase was present in the section concerning the correlation chart:

As the number of pirates is actually growing these days and is in no wise as low as portrayed in the chart, the figure is somewhat problematic and takes away from the humor of the joke.

Now, I've changed it to something less frivolous, since I think this change was due to some low-level trolling, but I'm not sure what should be done with it. I think we could do without the reference, since the point of the chart lies not in its real-world applicability, but its humorous mockery. What's the opinion here? -EarthRise33 00:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling? I think not. Were it trolling, you'd have killed it entirely and justifiably so. I've no actual problem with the edit, just the characterization. One of the things that provides a minor annoyance about FSM and "pastafarianism" is the casual use of easily debunked "facts" that even the worst religious carny act in the most rural hick town in the world would not stoop to for fear of getting caught. It was a joke in a joke, not well researched, and it turns out to rest on a popular prejudice (there's no more pirates out there) that is just not true. TMLutas 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The use of that graph was not meant to be completely factual, and you know it. The use of this set of 'easily debunked facts' serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to demonstrate that causation is not synonymous with correlation. This should lend support to the idea that Pastafarianism is a large parody, not a real religion. I think you're trying to be offended here.
Do you have something constructive to add? -EarthRise33 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've decided this reference is useless, so I'm removing it. -EarthRise33 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I've decided I shouldn't just let your insult of me go so I reverted it. First of all, you have no idea what I know or do not know about "pastafarianism" so accusing me of certain knowledge which I do, in fact, not actually possess is a type of assuming bad faith. I was going to let it slide so long as the text itself remained. Since you removed it, let's review.
1. The facts of the edit are germane. The number of actual pirates is relevant to a chart purporting to be about the number of pirates.
2. There is no challenge as to the truthfulness or accuracy of the edit.
3. I suspect (and commentary would be especially welcome here) that the "uselessness" of the edit is about its uselessness in keeping the joke funny. This article is not about keeping the joke funny (that would be POV pushing) but about describing the FSM phenomenon within the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia (including NPOV). If Leon Klinghoffer's relatives showed up with hurt attitudes and in short order changed the tone of the section to emphasize exactly how not funny joking about pirates is, so long as it kept to NPOV and other guidelines, this would be well within the realm of appropriate for Wikipedia. This edit falls well short of that. It's 'sin' is that it bleeds the funny out of a joke by explaining it. Oh, so sorry about that. TMLutas 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
So your reverting it just to spite me? That's definitely NPOV.
I was letting the original assumption of bad faith attack slide because the text hadn't been reverted. Should I be more rigorous next time? Usually people are happy when I'm *less* pissy. YMMV TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to your commentary, but whatever. Try not to split up posts next time. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
1. Pointing out ignorance on the part of the graph is not germane, since the graph is not aiming for factual accuracy.
Up to this entry, that hadn't been established, merely asserted. If there were 50 instead of 20 pirates in a particular year, that's one form of inaccuracy. The essential point of correlation and causation would be preserved. But we're going beyond that with the fact that the slope of the line is wrong. There isn't even a correlation to hang the joke's hat on. TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The slope is not wrong when one embraces the fabricated numbers. I'm not even sure where you got that conclusion. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Well, I'd call this a challenge, so whatever.
3. Discussion of the graph does not help or hinder the humor of the entire parody, since the graph does not need an accurate portrayal to convey its intent. Again, the graph indicates that causation is not the same as correlation. Nothing more. The reason that such an observation will not be made lies in that the observation is of no impact to the comedic value of Pastafarianism (and is personal research, as the reversion added in the article history). I accuse you of splitting hairs in an attempt to sate your need to find revenge for a perceived offense. -EarthRise33 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Humor, its existence, hindrance, etc are rather slippery matters. Try substituting "N. American deer" instead of pirates. It's not funny because a lot of people are aware that there's a deer population explosion going on, has been for decades. You can't just slap on any category whatsoever and have the chart still work and apparently I'm not the first guy to mention that. Mr. Henderson's attempt to save his chart is rather different than yours. He seems to be smart enough to at least see the problem and I honestly admire his solution. I'd actually find it funny to press him further on the birth of modern non-global warming countering piracy. TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well there ya go. Mr. Henderson, producer of the chart, has provided a definition of pirate that supports the conclusions of the chart. So basically your complaint does not stand. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
On page 63 of the Gospel (in the "Bobby Answers the Big Questions" section), the second question asks why modern "pirates" don't reduce global warming. From the answer: "Calling oneself a Pirate, or dressing up as one, does not make one a true Pirate; it takes much more. In what way are modern-day 'Pirates,' with their speedboats and machine guns, similar to the fun-loving buccaneers from history?" Other parts of the Gospel state that what we think we know of pirates today, that they were killers and thieves, is the result of a massive misinformation campaign by early Christian theologists, Hari Krishnas, and other religions, who worked together because they were jealous of the fun lifestyle of the pirates and who have since turned against each other with the pirates out of the way. "True" pirates, according to this religion, tend to travel in wooden sailboats for the purpose of exploration and having a good time, like to give out candy to children, enjoy the company of wenches and parrots, etc. You don't see nearly as many people who match even parts of that description nowadays, so, working by FSMism's definition of pirates (basically the stereotypical pop-culture one, like in that Lazytown song), the number of pirates has, in fact, been drastically reduced. The graph is still sort of hacked together with basically arbitrary numbers, but then FSMism also holds that the FSM manipulates data with His Noodly Appendage, in addition to much of the real evidence sinking in overloaded pirate ships (leaving only the other religions' misleading propaganda), so that is explained away as well. Sorry if my writing is incomprehensible. Hopefully what I just said can be understood. --ADoS71.192.64.235 15:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Not only understood but incorporated into my latest version of the edits. I don't have a problem in adding extra points even when they don't agree with my personal views. TMLutas 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Since that definition of pirate is in the hands of the prophet, and no other Pastafarian has made a claim otherwise, the observation that your definition of pirate doesn't correlate with his in reference to the graph is irrelevant. However, I will tack on Bobby's reference to pirates in modern times, which should quell any protest. Thank you for continuing to ensure that Pastafarianism exists as Bobby described it. -EarthRise33 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
The FSM wikipedia article needs to accurately present Bobby Henderson's views but it does not, and should not, drink his koolaid. That's fanboyism and not NPOV. TMLutas 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, because we're arguing how the chart fits Bobby's parody philosophy, we will use his definitions. That is about as NPOV about a joke religion created by some person as you can get. -EarthRise33 03:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the numeric glitch in the pirate chart deliberate?

The x-axis apparently is intended to indicate a decreasing number of pirates over time (to the right), but the first two numeric labels are, left to right, 35000 and 45000. Was this a slip by the originators, a deliberate glitch to conform to some actual statistics on piracy, or a deliberate glitch to satirize the common error of manipulating data to support one's position? The fact that the x labels start out as almost arithmetically linear, but then become more logarithmic, suggest the latter. (I went to their site, but it's a long procedure to register, get introduced, etc. Hoped someone here would know.) Thanks! Unimaginative Username 05:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually a deliberate glitch to not even conform to actual piracy statistics, but rather to demonstrate that causation and correlation are not one and the same. -EarthRise33 13:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, how do you know that it was a deliberate glitch? TMLutas 13:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Because Bobby himself has commented upon it. -EarthRise33 13:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you supply a link for that? I'm not challenging the fact, I just want to read it so it's not 2nd hand. TMLutas 13:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Having a hard time finding that particular comment. In the meantime, consider that Bobby remade the graph with the same axes: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ -EarthRise33 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering... considering... nope, still don't get the relevancy of his having remade the graph to the question of whether he's careless (not researching) or purposeful (deliberate glitch) in his error or some combination of the two. I think that there's a certain inelegance to a 'joke' by a scientist complaining about scientific sloppiness that is itself sloppy in its science. It would be worthy of note. TMLutas 14:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
If that caption below the graph that is currently there is yours, then I'm good with it. "Chart comparing Number of Pirates versus Global Warming. The labels on the x-axis are deliberately misleading." -EarthRise33 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put them there, but it's an accurate label addition :-) Unimaginative Username 21:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It achieves the same purpose TMLutas is pressing, without the POV contamination. -EarthRise33 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I can live with it. TMLutas 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Where they got it wrong

Although Pastafarianism is a fantastic relgion, it has one thing completely wrong. Global Warming is not due to the lack of pirates, but the lack of penguins. Penguins generate cold, and due to them dying out, the world is becoming warmer. I take this as a misprint.

L Lauriedix 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That's your religion, not Pastafarianism. -EarthRise33 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite Silly

I find it somewhat Ironic that this article is allowed, however an article about the game isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.228.208 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game) article has existed since March 2008 Dracker (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no. Don't you see Dracker, he must mean the FSM Board Game. Which I always lose at.

I swear, there are some pointless complaints about this article, it's almost as if...it touched some sort of nerve with their personal beliefs. Nooo, never. ;) 60.230.201.144 (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

It's a serious belief, I consider Christianity silly, should it be removed? No because it's a legitimate belief. C6541 (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're absoulutely right.I am not Christian, I'm a UU and Pastafarian mix. Anyhow, we should respect people regardless of their religious beliefs. If we didn't, the world would be in mass chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.32.89 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Don`t you dare suggesting to remove it. The FSM might get angry and show his wrath upon us all. Furthermore, I find it offensive such accusation of being silly, its against my beliefs and against what is thought in my school and my country. 142.3.121.63 (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it very judgmental to to say this is a parody religion they have their gospel, this very annoying. And i do follow this religion. Noel 22:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This Article makes no mention, of the appearance of the FSM in the Time Travel episode of South Park (where in Richard Dawkins uses it as an arugement to suede ms. Garrison) This was my first exposure to the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. and warrants inclusion in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.51.62 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

POV intro

"makes a mockery of the concept of an intelligent designer"

No it doesn't. It makes a mockery of the negative-proof argument for creationism, IE the false dilemma fallacy. "We don't like some of the evidence for theory A, so the answer must be magic". The idea is that there is no more proof of Christian creationism than ancient greek mythology, or any other creation myth, which includes, for parody purposes, spaghetti monsterism. Furthermore, there isn't really any "positive proof" evidence provided for creationism.. just criticism of evolution. I wouldn't even say FSM is a mockery.. it's just a parody. It uses the exact same logic and argument.

The entire intro sounds POV to me, not just this "error" which says that FSM mocks the designer. (When in fact it mocks the fallacious logic behind CLAIMING that there must be a designer.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.109.131 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Image

please remove the pic of Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH), as FSM donot give the permission of doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.148.70 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


This entry is making me hungry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.31.30 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The image seems to be okay by all copyright and wiki standards? Please elaborate.

Duct tape tricorn (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that that request for image removal was made by someone attempting to be funny (no comment on whether they succeeded in that regard) and not a legitimate request. As far as I can tell, there is not a legitimate reason to cut the image and plenty of good reasons to keep it around. --MisterB777 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

But yet its ok to remove pictures of Mohammed from wikipedia, because threats are used? 83.85.131.52 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't ok to remove pictures from the Mohammed article. See Talk:Muhammad/Images. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP?

With Bobby Henderson redirecting here does that mean this page must be held to BLP standards?MikeURL 23:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Beyond his notability as the creator of the FSM and his subsequent media appearances, is there any information about Bobby that could be used to make this a BLP segment? -EarthRise33 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Information about a person must always be held to BLP standards. That is not an excuse to act paranoid about information tangential to the person. Try to be reasonable about this JoshuaZ 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, no, you misunderstand me. I'm saying that I have heard nothing about Bobby Henderson's upbringing or lifestyle beyond his a) parody religion, b) media appearances, and c) unemployed physics grad status. I've no source for it. -EarthRise33 04:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Information about Henderson must be well-sourced since he is a living person, and BLP applies to any details about him. Does that clear things up? JoshuaZ 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm familiar with BLP. Sorry if I gave the impression I was opposed to such information. I'm asking what we should do if no other info is readily available. -EarthRise33 18:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Then we don't add any other info. I mean, in general we shouldn't add info that we can't verify, right? JoshuaZ 00:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I shall fall silent. -EarthRise33 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Google's cite of Wikipedia apparently knows more about Bobby than Wikipedia does. I looked for 'Bobby Henderson' + born and got July 18, 1980 (1980-07-18) (age 26) Roseburg, Oregon, United States. -EarthRise33 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion. I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics. More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar. I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion.Laberdere (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

$1,000,000

Are we sure that BoingBoing's offer was made in reference to James Randi's offer concerning supernatural abilities? I was under the impression that it was solely in reference to Kent Hovind's challenge, an association that is more relevant to the FSM's sociopolitical position. -EarthRise33 03:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If it's cool, I'm erasing it for lack of supporting material. -EarthRise33 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Falling

I'm pretty sure one of the pasterfarian beliefs is 'Intelligent Falling'. 'Intelligent Falling' is intended as a competitor of The Theory of Gravity as explanation as to why objects fall. It states that all objects fall as the result of the FSM's noodly apendages pushing them down, and argues that Gravity is 'just a theory'. It parodies the creationist argument that 'Evolution is just a theory'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.49.110 (talk) 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also claimed that the reason that people are taller these days is because the FSM has only so many appendages to push people towards the ground with. Fewer noodles to go around leads to taller people. -- 68.49.10.155 (talk)
Italians are for this very reason much smaller than northern europeans as they live in a more pasta rich environment. Noserider (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Pirates graph

Please join the discussion about which Pirate Graph to use to illustrate this article. See: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 31#Image:FSM Pirates.jpg. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Origin of "Pastafarian"

First time I heard the term "Pastafarian" was in a Russell Peters standup bit - "What you get when an Italian and a Jamaican marry". And this was before 2005. So I gotta ask, is it possible Henderson had that word in mind when he invented the FSM? --Fshafique (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC) I Have heard 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' before, either it was on the simpsons, or futurama, but it is definately not souly of this mans creation. very hilarious though. -kc

'Pastafarian' is the appropriate term for true adherents to the FSM because it conforms to the strand of teaching that 'His reach is long, his is the straight and narrow path but our human understanding curls back on itself before it finds the true sauce of wisdom' -DJP 27 May 08Pelagianism (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Pelagian

LOL - Now that belongs in the article itself. Meinsla (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Academic attention

A friend of mine, an artist associated with the Church of the Subgenius, passed along an article from CNN that indicates that FSM is getting some academic attention. This is not a topic I'm particularly interested in working on myself, so I am passing this along; it should be a useful reference, and someone may want to follow up to some of the individuals involved.

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

CNN seems to have eliminated that link, now, but the text can still be found here. Tim Ross·talk 12:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


Age and History

While the article says this religion was founded in 2005, and while the first historical appearance was indeed in May of that year, in that letter, with 10000 people and numerous books and literature, it may be that this religion existed earlier and was only discovered or exposed in modern day and not founded. This is made more obvious from the fact that the theory of Intelligent Design is so well researched and has so much evidence at the time the letter was sent which you can't just come up after a few days of binge drinking. So it may have existed for many years before that and have many historical references (was it on the Mayflower? What role did it have in building the pyramids? etc) and the religion could have been founded hundreds or thousands of years ago by a prophet to whom the Flying Spaghetti Monster communicated.Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


You have got a point there actually! I'd like to request that the "founded in 2005" bit was changed to "publicized in 2005".

--PPastafarian (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One could question the necessity of the paragraph that begins "In November of the same year the Kansas State Board of Education..." for its relevance to the article. It is a legitimate event with legitimate sources, but it's inclusion alters the tone of the article inasmuch as it appears in the form of a supporting argument for debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiesullivan (talk • contribs) 14:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Original Idea Before 2005?

I recall a reference to FSM that long predates 2005 but I cannot find it. I vividly recall a friend (who died in 1996) retelling a point he had read somewhere that man makes God in man's image — e.g. a bearded old white guy — and this form was strategically chosen to make God relatable. A religion where the supreme being took the form of a flying spaghetti monster would not thrive because the object of worship would not be relatable to humans. I would like to see some reference to this original concept in this article. Just to clarify, I'm not claiming Henderson stole the concept. I believe he very appropriately expropriated the idea and applied it to a different purpose. In fact, Henderson's parody was better not referring to any prior concept. But I'd like to know where it was first published. Does anyone recall who originated the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (long before 2005) to explain the man-like image of God in religions? --Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I followed the link to Russell's teapot and managed to find many derivative links from there. The teapot was the earliest example that I could see. Many of these examples focus on the futility of trying to prove a negative, however, rather than specifically targeting religion. -- Wguynes (Talk | contribs) 14:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a reference made today in an article in the NY Times [9] that attributes Flying Spaghetti Monster to Niels Bohr. Here's the paragraph that mentions it:
"So in the spirit of Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory, who is said to have said that a great truth is a statement whose opposite is also a great truth, I would answer "Yes" to your question. I hope that cosmos and chaos turn out to be two sides of the same thing, whatever you want to call that thing — existence, being, the great flying spaghetti monster."

--Anne C. Russell (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read closely enough. He answers in the spirit of Niels Bohr, and makes a summary of one of Bohr's arguments. Then, he (not Bohr) goes on to talk about the FSM. Icarus of old (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I remember talking about the FSM at the Atheist and Agnostic Student Group at Texas A&M back in 1995. It was discussed on the web and usenet groups at the time. This Henderson guy is taking credit for ideas that were fully formed at least a whole decade before 2005. 209.191.166.202 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
For inclusion, if FSM can be dated before Henderson's 'telling', we need reliable sources.--Alf melmac 07:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

religion?

this articles syas that this is a "religion"..is this a mistake,or is this far fecthed story true..?96.224.176.40 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a parody religion, i.e., it has all the ornaments of your standard religion, but is recognized to have these parts in order to make a point through satire. -EarthRise33 (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The article is very clear in describing it as a parody religion. Visit the provided Wikilink to learn more about what is a parody religion. TechBear (talk) 14:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As much of a religion as Christianity. 99.247.165.148 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In a sense is true in that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a Religion, it is a Deity -- if you are asking if it is real or not you would have to ask someone of faith as no Muslim Jew Buddist Christian or insert religion here is likely to answer no to any Deity who is not their own. Meanwhile, I'm sure we've all seen people who pray to numerous things for numerous reasons. If you are uncertain about this question forget about it and ask yourself the two bigger questions of what is a religion and what does a religion do -- wait, don't ask that question ask what is a religion supposed to do. Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


The opening of this article cites a report on creationism for a source claiming it to be a "parody religion" rather than a religion, however, according to the official site of the religion itself:

"The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, while having existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, only recently came into the mainstream when this letter was published in May 2005.

With millions, if not thousands, of devout worshippers, the Church of the FSM is widely considered a legitimate religion, even by its opponents - mostly fundamentalist Christians, who have accepted that our God has larger balls than theirs.

Some claim that the church is purely a thought experiment, satire, illustrating that Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a pseudoscience manufactured by Christians to push Creationism into public schools. These people are mistaken. The Church of FSM is real, totally legit, and backed by hard science. Anything that comes across as humor or satire is purely coincidental.''

This can be read here: [10]
I therefore firmly believe that Pastafarianism should be classified as a religion, since the creator himself does take it seriously and has never referred to it as a "parody". True devotees of the religion make their stance very clear. Symphonien (talk) 08:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Yep I agree with Symphonien and as a "true devotee" (though i'd rather not use those exact words, hehe) I can say that my stance is the same as thousands of other Pastafarians in that in order for our religion to reach the public it had to be first shown as a parody, a satire and an insert-whatever-here just to spread the word a bit. Needless to say, this worked amazingly well.
So, while it can be misleading at some times because of the route we took to becoming well known, don't make the mistake of thinking that Pastafarianism is not a real religion because at the end of the day, it is!

--PPastafarian (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Lacking

This article will eventually need to be amended to address the offensiveness and perceived bigotry associated with this subject. Like it or not, many people react to this concept as am implicit statement of anti-religious hatred, not comedy. The article is almost entirely positive in its portrayal, which is not a neutral POV.

1: The judge who ruled on the Dover Cove case needed to be placed under federal protection for his ruling which was neither comedic nor anti-religious (nor hatred) in any context (except it didn't admit Intelligent Design). So we must accept the notion that this article will always be (even if it actually is) too positive and dismiss any non-constructive claims it is positive and all because it will always be perceived by some as offensive and anti-religious as easily as a neutral judge was targeted. Any perceptions might be too clouded by irrational POV and any complaints would obviously need to extensively examined as a few bad eggs with no ability to make sound rational judgments may be around to further muddy the waters for those of us with clear heads or legitimate enhancements. Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
2: This article should not be any more offensive to any particular religion than it is to any other group that are more centrally involved like the Kansas School Board, Kansas, or American, etc. This was originally not a Parody of God or Religion as much as it was a retaliatory response to the subversive attempts to circumvent the system and (re)introduce "Intelligent Design" a rewritten hack of creationism into a school curriculum. Most of the offense was taken by defenders of Creationism not necessarily by any particular religion, but any offense in removing "God" and replacing it with "undetermined force" should more offensive to more people (including even some religious people in having God taken out of the equation indifferent of the supposed good intension) than removing "undetermined force" and replacing it with "Flying Spaghetti Monster". Tymes (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


The FSM loves all his creations equally, even those with blasphemous beliefs in non-FSM gods.

Should an element of hostile POV be introduced to this article, then this should be the case in all other religious articles. Unlike the Abrahamic religions, Pastafariaism is not bigotted in condemning those who follow other religions and if those people find this offensive then surely this is an aspect of their belief system not Pastafarianism Streona (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don`t see your point. There is no comedy at all in this article. How can you offend me saying my religion is a comedy? There is no anti-religious, no hate, offensive content. The FSM loves us all and he is with you too, even if you don`t believe in him, don`t worry.142.3.121.63 (talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Links

I deleted the Uncyclopedia link. There was no reason for an Uncyclopedia link to be in there. If you feel I'm wrong, please re-add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.4.115 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here, it's also a good idea to put a brief description or reference to "see talk" on the edit summary. It didn't seem a bad idea to link a parody of this parody, so I've restored it, but not a big deal either way. ... dave souza, talk 11:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia has no place in this article. It is a serious religion. Would you like an Uncyclopedia link in article about muslin or Christianity? I don`t think so. 142.3.121.63 (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category

Added [[Category:Creator gods]] Pingnak (talk) 00:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I removed it. Much as I love the FSM this is a parody so does not belong in that particular cat. Sophia 08:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
After some thought, I put it back. There are 74 other deities so listed, at least some of which seem to have no more substance than FSM (perhaps less). Since part of the FSM story involves creation, the cat does make sense. Tim Ross 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Your use of the word 'substance' in this context amuses me. The cat definitely belongs here. 144.32.59.199 (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum

Why was the reductio ad absurdum aspect of FSM removed from the article? What was the justification? --Macrowiz (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, Pastafarianism is not a reductio ad absurdum, based on the true (and not oft quoted) definition of the reductio. -EarthRise33 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you be less simpler? What are the true and oft quoted definitions? --Macrowiz (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems the oft quoted definition is, "If a line of reasoning can be used to deduce an absurd conclusion, then the line of reasoning is incorrect." RAA, or proof by contradiction, involves assuming that which you aim to refute and deriving via logic something contradictory or otherwise impossible. In other words, "FSM doesn't prove or disprove anything - it only contends that neither do similar arguments made in support of the traditional YHWH hypothesis, which is thus incomplete. Put another way, proving something unproven is not the same as disproving it." (to deliberately plagiarize the words of two users in a past thread.) -EarthRise33 (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New York Magazine is a reputable "popular culture" reference and not simply a "gossip column"

Discussion from my user page, moved here in date sequence for information. .. dave souza, talk 08:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "Founded by Milton Glaser and Clay Felker in 1968 as a competitor to The New Yorker, it offers less national news and more gossip, but has also published noteworthy articles on city and state politics and culture over the years." The article on Bobby Henderson was germane as his creation is parody and the fact that his creation provided a financial windfall for the (at that time) unemployed grad IS factual and important as to same.

From Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources" page:

Popular culture and fiction

Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included.

There is no doubt that the creation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster IS a matter of "popular culture" and The New York magazine is a publication that address popular culture in a respected manner. Therefore this contribution *is* of value and the reference (New York mag) *is* perfectly within the intent of Wikipedia's references guidelines.

Please re-read the guidelines on popular culture references before you haphazardly delete pertinent contributions. Thank you. Supertheman (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In terms of popular culture and fiction it's certainly a reasonable source, but even the best news magazines have gossip columns, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy requires particular care when adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, high quality references are required, and the article must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The statement that his creation provided a "financial windfall" for the (at that time) unemployed grad indicates a violation of WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position and is a sensationalist way of saying he got an advance as an author, as is the NYm subtitle for their article "The $80,000 Pasta Bible Jackpot for unemployed slot-machine engineer and heretic" – the web page title is the more reasonable "The Case For Intelligent Design: Spaghetti as the Creator". The point about him getting the advance is already covered in The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster section of the article, in reasonable terms. We don't seem to mention him being unemployed or a slot-machine engineer. If you think that's worth adding to the body of the article, put the case on the article talk page, and try to find another source. However, it's my opinion that this isn't significant enough to put in the lead, which should summarise material in the body of the article, and it certainly shouldn't be presented in a sensationalist way. .. dave souza, talk 16:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The creator of The Flying Spaghetti Monster

[cross-posted from User talk:Snalwibma - I don't understand why it was placed there instead of here in the first place... It's a response to this edit. Snalwibma (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC))]
Info about the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not "irrelevant". Also, the contribution was WELL sourced, with a footnote leading to the webpage of the article. Please quit erasing pertinent content that you find "irrelevant", your opinion is of no value, the guidelines of Wikipedia clearly allow for such contributions, see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples. The creation of The Flying Spaghetti Monster provided a financial windfall for the creator, that is valuable information as altruism has often been credited as the source of his effort. The public has a need and a right to know that this creation meant hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bobby Henderson. This is important information and NOT "irrelevant".Supertheman (talk) 06:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how Henderson's employment status is relevant to the subject of the article, and the suggestion that he did it for the money while a lowly slot-machine engineer who couldn't get a job looks like a gossip-column-based slur. The source is indeed a gossip column. No doubt "valuable information" if you wish to cast the FSM and the motives of its creator in a certain light, but hardly balanced and neutral. Snalwibma (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
On the Intelligent Design page, this is stated and upheld (by admins) as germane: "Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[5][6] believe the designer to be the God of Christianity" and also, "consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience." These are *facts*, but they cast "the motives of its creator in a certain light". Bobby Henderson as a physics grad is important, but him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer isn't? If him being an unemployed slot-machine engineer casts him in a "certain light", then the mention of him being a physics grad also casts him in a "certain light". The point is, both are FACTS, and both are GERMANE. The source is NOT a "gossip column"... according to Wikipedia *itself*: Your views about Bobby Henderson and your desire to "cast him in a certain light" are not at issue, what is are FACTS, and the fact is that not only was he a physics grad, but he was also an unemployed slot-machine engineer. Both are true, both are germane.Supertheman (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I could be persuaded that his physics degree from wherever is also irrelevant. Snalwibma (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
As discussed previously on my talk page and posted above for information, WP:BLP requires particular care, and while the NYm no doubt carries worthy news stories, this does seem to be a gossip column putting a spin on the situation. The amount earned for undertaking writing the book is already shown in the article, further biographical details should appropriately appear in the body of the article rather than the lead, with good sources rather than gossip columns. .. dave souza, talk 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already been over this, Wikipedia itself says that New York Magazine is: ""Founded by Milton Glaser and Clay Felker in 1968 as a competitor to The New Yorker, it offers less national news and more gossip, but has also published noteworthy articles on city and state politics and culture over the years" Also, *your* interpretation of New York magazine is unimportant, the bottom line is: it is fact. It is irrelevant if the source is "distasteful" to you, the point is the facts are *correct*. The person who did the article did the fact checking and this was his status at the time of mailing the letter. It is fact, and it is germane just as the fact that he was a physics grad is germane. I've already linked you the Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Popular_culture_and_fiction which clearly states: However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources.

I have just added an additional reference noting his status at the time from a column in The Dallas Morning News by Clarence Page. That should put to rest the reliability of the source.

The FSM is a parody religion and is certainly a item of popular culture, therefore references that are *allowable* under Wikipedia's Reliable sources are completely relevant and germane.

Finally, a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility in certain instances. For example, a tenured university physics professor's opinion concerning matters of physics is of the utmost importance to the reliability and relevancy of his opinion. Bobby Henderson wasn't a professor, he was a physics grad who was an unemployed slot machine technician and that certainly is pertinent to the viability of the FSM as a serious criticism of introducing Creative Design into the Kansas educational system and to the relevance of his opinion as to said. Beyond that, it is simply FACT, just as his being a physics grad is fact. Repeatedly undoing my pertinent, germane contribution (clearly within the guidelines of Wikipedia) and simply parroting WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP will not erase the facts about Bobby Henderson that should be included in this item of popular culture.Supertheman (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, "a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility in certain instances", but this is absolutely not one of those instances. Henderson's status as a physics grad who was an unemployed slot machine technician is utterly irrelevant. It has no bearing on his credibility in this case, or on his entitlement to make a point about the idiocy of the Kansas educational system. As I said above, I think maybe it would be best to delete the physics grad status from the lead as well, because that is in fact equally irrelevant. But either way, dave souza is absolutely right - no problem including these facts in the article, but the lead is not the appropriate place. Putting it there does absolutely raise issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Take it out of the lead and build it into the body of the article. Snalwibma (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and shifted the detail about Henderson's background and employment status from the lead to the body of the article. What do you think? I'm still not convinced of the need to include this material, given the WP:BLP policy, but at least it seems better balanced in this position. Snalwibma (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it's going to be in, it should be set in context, so I've put the point in date sequence and expanded it a bit. The FSM website sidebar shows the Gospel with a blurb from the Scientific American "Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny", so unemployment's not a big deal. The NYT noted that he'd stated on his web site that he was desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas", and the subsequent reports appear to have spun this as "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". Bit of a cheek, really, since scientists are by no means engineers, as my son (doing mech eng) would tell you if he was here himself. Anyway, it's worth reading Henderson's Feb 02 blog about how he's spending "a lot of time trying to avoid a Real Job"."Bobby Henderson's blog". Retrieved 2008-02-07. :o) . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Dave, that looks much much much better. Thanks. All seems to make perfect sense now, and IMHO it looks reasonably fair and balanced - but I only wandered in here by mistake, and I'm a semi-unemployed biologist, so of course I'm not really qualified to comment, given that a person's job is of critical importance as it pertains to his credibility ... Snalwibma (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, given its provenance the statement that he was "desperately trying to avoid taking a job programming slot machines in Las Vegas" may have been a joke – do they have slot machine programmers? The subsequent reports of him as a slot machine engineer may have had some other source, or may have been typical journalists spicing up their story, or may just mean that, like some people, they had no sense of humour. Who can tell? .. dave souza, talk 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I still have a couple problems, one, why is he stated *defacto* as a "physics grad", but his status as a "unemployed slot-machine engineer" only "described" by the Dallas Morning News? We need a direct reference that he is a "physics grad" or this also must be written as how he is "described". Also, I wonder if Dave and Snalwibma would direct the same fervor to whit they have fought to bury the employment status of Bobby Henderson to moving the reference that basically all of "the proponents" of intelligent design are members of the "Discovery Institute" to a more appropriate place on the page? If Bobby Henderson's status is unimportant in the first section, then the affiliation of the "proponents" of ID is not appropriate in the first section of ID.Supertheman (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between being "a physics graduate" and being "an unemployed slot-machine engineer". The first is a simple matter of fact (either you are or you aren't). The second, as Dave souza has shown, appears most likely to be a slightly tongue-in-cheek (or possibly mischievous) interpretation of a humorous remark by Henderson himself, an expression of a feeling more than a matter of fact. In which case it seems entirely appropriate to say that he was the one and was described as the other. If you think he is not really physics graduate, by all means add a "citation needed" tag, or some such (though personally I think it would look rather silly). And no, I will not go and attend to the intelligent design page. Do it yourself if there is something there that bothers you! Snalwibma (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I restrained myself from saying "Yeah, right" after saying "check out the ID page", but I knew it was about as likely as *seeing* the FSM.<grin> In the meantime, I have written a letter to Mr. Henderson asking him to clarify his employment status and to confirm his status as a physics grad. Hopefully he will respond with citations as to said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supertheman (talk • contribs) 02:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(repeated from above, relevant for discussion here) The current location of Bobby Henderson's occupation and (alleged?) aversion to a "real job" tends to stick out and reads as some haphazardly thrown in criticism of the creator of the parody religion. I don't know how relevant Bobby Henderson's career aspirations are to the topic of the Flying Spaghetti Monster / Pastafarianism because they seem to be two entirely different topics. More specifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would STILL be a parody religion and STILL have the same uproar if Mr. Henderson was in fact a Rhodes Scholar. I move to remove that biographical information, or, at the very least, relocate it to a more logical place in discussion. Laberdere (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that his "real job" is as pertinent as his status as a "physics grad". If we remove one, we remove the other. I agree that neither belong on the page. Is there a consensus on this?Supertheman (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As he has now written and published several books on various aspects of the FSM and Pastafarianism and is probably coining a small additional fortune from the worldwide sales of various related items, how about instead we refer to him as an "author and successful internet entrepreneur"? One suspects he will be able to live very comfortably for the rest of his life and in some luxury, without the hassle of ever having to get a real career. Time will tell on that. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
That's WP:OR, unless you can cite a WP:RS. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Erm, did you think I was being serious? I was just taking a jibe at this nonsensical and tortuous discussion about his employment status. Although I still don't think he will ever need to work again on the back of this money making opportunity. The man is not daft. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
No, I was assuming good faith. It appears that my assumption here was misplaced. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Schism

I'm reading Dawkins' God Delusion, and on page 53 he says "by the way, it had to happen - a Great Schism has already occurred, resulting in the Reformed Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." He cites the following website:(Link to LULU removed, it was blacklisted). I also found the Reformed Church of Alfredo: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Church_of_Alfredo.

I think the trend should be mentioned in the article. The other organizations may not be officially "recognized" by the main Church - but that only helps the analogy to other religions. Whenever new sects split off of a larger religion, they aren't recognized, in fact they are typically denounced as heretics. Also the mention in Dawkins' book I think qualifies it as academically noteworthy and not original research. Thoughts?VatoFirme (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about this yesterday. I think it's noteworthy enough of inclusion. Kit Berg (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. If it was just based on Uncyclopedia then definitely not, but as Dawkins does mention it it ought to be worth a sentence or so. Hut 8.5 21:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Separate page for Bobby Henderson?

Does anyone else think it might be useful to have a page for Bobby Henderson's biography, distinct from the Flying Spaghetti Monster page? Tim Ross (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. You'd need significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, and all sources mentioning him will probably only give trivial mentions connected with the FSM (and hence a redirect here is more appropriate). Hut 8.5 11:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletiong tag explanation

Just thought it would be good to put a note in here as to why I pulled the Speedy Deletion tag on the Pirate Graph image. While the graph, by itself, seems to be nonsense, it actually has a valid basis in both Flying Spaghetti Monster history and, really, just needed a better caption to make it understandable. As the text next to the image (and now the image's caption itself) points out, the graph showing a correlation between Global Warming and the Number of Pirates is intentionally absurd so that it can illustrate the ridiculousness of claiming that correlation equals causation. As such, while the image represents an absurd concept, it does not seem to satisfy the Criteria for Speedy Deletion as it is not, in fact Patent Nonsense or Gibberish. Definitely needs to be talked through if it is up for deletion. --MisterB777 (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Universe as a bunch of spaghetti strands

This commentary by an anonymous poster on Slashdot concerning the article Hubble Survey Finds Missing Matter, Probes Intergalactic Web sums it up best: It is a noodle like structure. FSM 1 ID 0. I assume by ID he meant Intelligent Design and not the Freudian construct. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying there is a connection between Pastafarianism and String Theory? Newell Post (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image

I just uploaded Image:Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pirate Dragon Con 2007.jpg, in case you guys are interested in using it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


The Creation of a 'Non-Parody Following' Section

Now, as much as many users here dislike it (and they do, at great length, regardless of whether their personal feelings against Pastafarianism followers can conform to Wikipedia policy or not), the repeated criticism and complaints by users over whether this is a "real" religion or specifically a parody needs to be settled.

I propose a section on the "Non-Parody" following of Pastafarianism. As while the founding denotes parody, its successive existence has taken on an entire new meaning. Now, whether the current incarnation and its "sects" (if any) may also in fact be parodies, they being actual legitimate followings may also be true.

While obviously a working title ("Non-Parody Following"), I propose that if such a section can be sourced according to Wikipedia policy, as with the rest of the article, confirming that it indeed does have a non-parody following, it allow that following and their beliefs on Pastafarianism/FSM to be referred to as a legitimate religion/religious/belief movement as is seen in any other article on "cults", religions or dogmatic followings. Without of course the ever present problem of revertation.

In this way, both the fact Pastafarianism was created and continued as a parody will be met, along with the continued problem of its actual legitimate religious aspects to people not being be met. As its creation as a parody can be mentioned easily alongside its actual legitimate practitioners.

It seems the "parody" religion itself meets all the requirements for a genuine article on a religion, except for its founding as a parody, which holds no weight on what its current incarnation is or considers itself, hence the problem of editors reverting its mentioning as a legitimate religion on the basis they believe it is not (sorry but "I think its not" or "people believe its a parody" isn't a legitimate reason why those who do practice it as a faith are not legitimate) rather than presented sources for why ALL of its practitioners are just lying and EVERY follower (even in the face of users testifying to the opposite) is playing along with the parody. We go through the same problem with the Xenu section on Scientology, and if we were to find out today that Scientology began as a fake religion (no wise crack guys, im making a point on what constitutes a "real" religion) to make money, we would still not be allowed to designate it as a scam.

So that is it.

I propose a section on the non-parody following of Pastafarianism. Only, and I repeat, ONLY if the section itself provides LEGITIMATE and RELIABLE sources for sections of the "movement" being a legitimate religious following outside of its parody beginnings.

I propose this so we may find out who is opposed to such a section and who is in agreement with it as a way to solve this continued problem of parody Vs. religion. I propose this so a section can be created without an edit-war by overzealous editors immediately reverting or deleting any mention of it as a legitimate religion because they believe its vandalism.

Yes/No?

This is just a courtesy of course, if a section can be created in accordance to Wikipedia policy that establishes a legitimate non-parody following, many editors will have to deal with it. Just as many so-called practitioners will have to deal with it if reliable and legitimate sources cannot be found to establish it has actual non-parody followers, which the problem so far has been attaching those sources to cover the entirety of Pastafarianism not being a parody (which cannot succeed). 60.230.201.144 (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

There are sources saying the FSM is a parody religion, and until someone finds sources saying it isn't the article is going to say it is a parody. Hut 8.5 17:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to disagree that we should look to reliable sources. However, we should bear in mind that given a person claiming belief in FSM, the options are A) they are feigning "belief" just to make (what must seem to them) a very clever philosophical point; or B) they actually believe in a flying spaghetti monster. That someone is indulging is A would hardly be surprising, but a claim that B is true is a very exceptional one indeed. Recall that "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included" (WP:REDFLAG). — Matt Crypto 18:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hut, I suggest you ACTUALLY read rather than making statements my entire post addressed to seek to stop. Because this...

There are sources saying the FSM is a parody religion, and until someone finds sources saying it isn't the article is going to say it is a parody.

Shows the same type of ignorance that people will use to remove a specific section on the NON-PARODY FOLLOWING in the guise of "oh, they must be trying to change the entire article to say its a religion". Which is exactly what this proposed section is meant to avoid. Matt, good points. 60.230.203.88 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

The source cited is actually entitled "The dangers of creationism in education", I fail to see how is it an unbiased source of information about any religion with a creator deity. And what about http://www.venganza.org/about which explicitly states it's not a parody religion? An official refutation by the religion's current leader is not enough? • Maurog • 10:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As a Pastafarian, I think this issue needs to be addressed. The majority of Pastafarians do genuinely believe, no joke. Bobby Henderson himself has stated that this is not a parody religion, and the 'sources' against this are from non-Pastafarians. That's like citing sources on Christianity from atheists saying that it's a joke. Please, change this article or add a 'non-parody following' section, as there is enough evidence to support the fact that it's not a parody. 71.228.245.34 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing

The image of the FSM creating trees, mountains, and a "midgit" should be included, and described. Badagnani (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Per [11], watermarked images cannot be used (or i'm pretty sure they can't be). --MattWT 11:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Should "god" be followed by [sic]

Resolved long ago. Now it is just a troll magnet.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style suggests that the first letter of "God", since it is a proper noun or honorific, should be capitalized. Hence using a [sic] tag inside the quote is appropriate, particularly since there are some overzealous editors who are keen on capitalizing the "G". Please explain here why the [sic] tag should be removed. Thank you, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's only for Honorifics. So it's, "a god" but "the Christian God". The sic template in this case pushes a monotheistic POV. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It suggest no such thing. The captilization of God in reference to a god is purely a Christian concept. The word god is fine. And please keep your monotheistic POV out of this page, wikipedia suggests no such thing in relation to the use of the word god opposed to God. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlquin

If you would bother to read the link I provided to the Wikipedia manual of style, then I think you will find that you are wrong in that assertion. I think I may have misread or misunderstood the context, but I was acting in good faith. Also, I would appreciate it if you would not use personal attacks like "keep your monotheistic POV out of this page." I was neither raised in a monotheistic religion, nor do I now subscribe to any religion (let alone a monotheistic one): I am an atheist. So, please keep your assumptions about the POVs of other editors to yourself in the future. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your link shows nothing of this "suggestion". It states it can be used, as Erik the Red 2 has explained to you. It however presentes nothing that even remotely suggests why we should use it here. As for your attempts to direct criticism of your attempt to push POV into this article, and once more after having it explained to you why you cannot, I would suggest you refrain from it. It is not a "personal attack" to state your attempt to push a POV on the use of a word that denotes monotheism in this case into a wiki article. It is however against the rules to use allegations such as a claim of "personal attack" to deflect criticism. So I suggest you not attempt that here either. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Just to correct you on one point. From the linked section of the MoS:
  • Honorifics for deities, including proper nouns and titles, start with a capital letter (God, Allah, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Great Spirit, the Horned One); the is not capitalized. The same is true when referring to major religious figures and figures from mythology by titles or terms of respect (the Prophet, the Messiah, the Virgin, a Muse). Common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized; thus the Romans worshipped many gods, many Anglo-Saxons worshipped the god Wotan, Jesus and Muhammad are both considered prophets in Islam, biblical scholars dispute whether Mary was a virgin for her entire life, and her husband was her muse.
Secondly, you are supposed to focus on the edits, not on the editors. I would kindly ask that you immediately desist from your continued insistence that I am attempting to "push a POV" into the article. This is completely off-base. I have acted entirely in good faith here in an attempt to improve the article, and ensure that it conforms to a neutral point of view, following up a concern of another editor. Now, rather than engage in an edit war (as you are now doing), I posted here on the talk page to discuss the matter. I was corrected and overruled. End of story. I don't know why you seem to have such an axe to grind with me. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read your own quote in depth. A single supreme god does not need to be considered and referred to as God or a God through lack of other dieties. This is explained within your own link and in a short paragraph by Erik the Red 2. You claim it "suggests" God be used in place of god. Right now god suffices, and you must explain why God overrides it, especially as God promotes a POV within this article.

As for your continued complaints, I suggest you also take them elsewhere. YOU as a wikipedia editor are on this talk page attempting to push the use of God opposed to god. As God is monothesitic within this context, you are pushing that POV where no Christian God exists to refer to within this article. This is criticism of your tactics, and as ive now repeatedly stated, this is not a "personal attack" to tell you to stop pushing POV when it is established that what you advocate is POV. You are grasping at straws now, and have now begun actual personal attacks with stating im "enaged in an edit war" when ive edited nothing on this subject we are discussing and "I dont know why you seem to have sch an axe to grind ith me".

Cease your personal attacks and do not attempt to deflect criticism by claiming others are doing so by pointing out the subject you are dicussing and attempting to push within the article. 124.182.52.116 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC) Harlequin

Oh brother! For what it's worth, I more or less agree with Eric the Red, although it could be argued that "Is there a god/God?" does refer to god in the monotheistic sense and so should be capitalized. I really don't see the point in arguing about it anymore. I am not trying to push any POV into the article. In fact, I have completely dropped the issue. Do you see me edit warring about it? I posted a comment here for input, and that was the end of it. Until you accused me of being a POV-pusher, contrary to WP:AGF. I suggest that you learn the rules here, since you have so far violated at least two of them, if you wish to continue to contribute to the project. Bye now, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Image

Flying Spaghetti Monster and Pirate at Dragon Con 2007

Is this image possibly relevant to your interests? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not vandalism: The trend still holds

As shown by http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4285201.html there has been an increase of pirate activity in the latter part of 2008. This coincides with recent drops in global temperature. See: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/ This continues to show "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation"

Please at least READ the information before reverting changes. Please consider it for less than a quarter of a second.

You have a section on showing "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation" There is then a graph on the increase of global temperatures and number of pirates.

1. So we have an increase of pirates recently. READ THE ARTICLE above 2. We have a decrease in global temperatures. READ THE ARTICLE above

I am not vandalizing, I am showing the that there is still a correlation even when the trend reverses. Thus still showing the "absurdity of assuming that correlation implies causation"

You may want to refer to: Number 3 of the The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"

3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.18.77.93 (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Another image

Christmas Lights representing the Flying Spaghetti Monster. ¿Maybe for a paragraph about merchandising? --3coma14 (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

IS

Perhaps it is not clear what my dispute is. Not the word Parody, but the word IS. Is should never be used in a scholarly paper, since it is a conclusion that must be proven. Having references and citations that support a hypothesis does not prove something is anything. It supports that it may be what the author asserts. Knowing the Earth was the center of the universe did not make it so, back in the middle ages. There were plenty of sources asserting the Earth centered universe. When astronomical proof demonstrated the Earth revolved around the Sun and not the other way around, it did not change reality. Writing in absolutes, gets a red circle in about any academic paper turned in. it can be cited that many world religions consider others to be cults or fakes. That does not make any of them more or less so. That 1/5 of the world is Muslim does not make it any more correct than the 4/5 that are not. --K3vin (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See sophistry. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
and E-Prime, suggest a construction of the data in such and see it floats people's boats, but there's a hell of a lot of articles out there needing e-priming.--Alf melmac 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about matters of verifiability and fact here. I think E-priming articles is an awful idea. If you think this is a good idea, you should take it up at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) first rather than beta-testing it here. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should have put a :p or something by that last bit, I was suggesting K3vin wrote that one line in e-prime to see how it looked... --Alf melmac 06:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite an interesting term, however, I am not advocating that FSM is not a parody nor that it is, just that an encylopedia should not lable it as such. Very few things are something wthout an exception. I believe a religious society, even if disavowed by its founder, is in a protected class, requiring softer use of absolutes when it comes to assertions. There are some scholars that assert Jesus of Nazareth would disavow the current incarnation of Christianity. I am not agreeing or dissagreeing with their assertions, but if that is in an encyclopedic article, it would be clarified within the context of opinion. see how I change the wording to satisfy my minor argument.---K3vin (talk)

Per WP:V: the threshhold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. When we have every reliable source (quite rightly) asserting that the religion is a parody religion, that's what the article should say. Also, you may want to look into the history of this "religion" before you take a stance here. The "religion" *was* intended as a parody, and the article rightly emphasizes that aspect of it in connection with the Creation-evolution controversy. Saying that it is "widely considered to be a parody religion" introduces doubt where there is none. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No one will accuse me of not knowing when to quit. Whoops :-) No one SHOULD accuse me of not knowing when to quit. I am not prepared to offer anythin substantive, and its not all that important enough to get into an edit war over. You know it is, I know it is, they know it is, I just do not feel right saying it is. If that is not clear, I should return to greater semantics class at the ole learning teachification place.  :-) ---K3vin (talk)

RfC: Parody religion

  • FSM is described by all reliable sources as a parody religion, and its first verifiable appearance was an explicit parody of the Creationists' attempt to have Christian religious views taught alongside evolution in science classes, in the greater context of the Creation-evolution debate. Given the fact that all sources characterize the religion as a parody, and that any reasonable person looking at the history of the religion would come to the conclusion that it is a parody, should it be so characterized in the article? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by involved parties

All Reliable sources requires a pretty heavy burden of proof. I just did my standard citation search on the subject just to see if I could find a diversity of opinion. I have found non-judgmental examples, giving "good faith" attention to the subject at hand.

--K3vin (talk) 23:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC) Here goes:

cites

  • "The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created in 2005 by computer scientist Bobby Henderson" -
Savino, John. Supervolcano: The Catastrophic Event That Changed the Course of Human History: Could Yellowstone Be Next. Marie D. Jones. Career Press. p. p56. ISBN 1564149536. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)
  • Henderson, Bobby. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Random House Inc.,. ISBN 0812976568.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  • "Why shouldn't we comment on God, as scientists? And why isn't Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, equally immune from scientific scepticism?"
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Books. p. p55. ISBN 0618680004. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)
  • Afshin Beheshti, PhD
“As a scientist I believe that when presented with a new idea every possibility should be considered so we can eventually find the truth. It would be very biased if the only possibilities presented would be regulated by some authority. As a scientist I am biased towards the theory of evolution, but this does not mean that everyone should be forced to only learn this and believe this. Putting this aside, I feel if the government feels the need to regulate what students need to learn, then all ideas should be taught in school. Not only Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught, but the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) should also be taught. In my scientific opinion when comparing the two theories, FSM theory seems to be more valid then the classic ID theory. There is more data to back FSM then I have ever seen for ID. The graph which was presented should alone more convincing then anything ID has ever presented. I endorse the FSM theory.“ –Afshin Beheshti, PhD
"Disproving God". Oct 19, 2008.
  • "That reality may include God, or the Tooth Fairy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster - we won't assume any specifics from the outset. ."
Fost, Joshua. If Not God, Then What?: Neuroscience, Aesthetics, and the Origins of the Transcendent. Clearhead Studios, Inc. p. p194. ISBN ISBN 0615161065. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  • "You could worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster,1 or Zeus, or the Morrigan, so long as you did it with respect and love".
Szabo, Allyson. LONGING FOR WISDOM: The Message of the Maxims. (self) Allyson Szabo. p. p53. ISBN 1438239769. {{cite book}}: |page= has extra text (help)

--K3vin (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

None of these sources appear to contradict the assertion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was constructed as a parody. What is needed here is a direct statement "FSM was not constructed as a parody religion," along with enough substantiation to make it plausible. The burden of proof is a heavy one, given that one would need to overturn the fact (as far as it goes) that the religion was developed as a parody of Creationists' attempts to have biblical creation ex nihilo taught alongside evolution in science classrooms. It would need to be shown that this was not a parody, and that there is some actual evidence of a religion having existed prior to the lampooning of the Kansas City Schoolboard. None of the sources you cite comes remotely close to addressing these issues. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not what any of these sources are doing almost at all. The first one doesn't mention the matter either way. The second one is Henderson's own work and we know he almost never says anything about it being a parody(that's part of the joke). Dawkins is making a separate point because he considers about all religion equally ridiculous. Indeed, the parody nature of the FSM is implicit in his point. The next one is again implicitly using the idea of the FSM as a ridiculous idea comparing it to the Tooth Fairy. The last one is a self-published screed with minimal relevance. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. is a description of the organization
  2. is proof that it exists as "good news"
  3. as much as says all religions are parodies
  4. states that FSM is viable as a belief system
  5. illustrates perfectly my point. Not to assume or label something to be parody just because everyone else does.
  6. is the weakest, I admit, but I liked it enough to leave it.

It should not matter that it started as a joke. Perhaps Latter Day Saints and Scientology did too. Shall I search for allegations on that? Once something is out there, schisms occur from time to time, and theories are denounced and recanted. The Church of England was founded under dubious standards as far as the See of Rome was concerned. I am not even entering into the debate on whether or not FSM is a parody or not, but whether or not WP should committ in writing that it is. It seems like a stepped on some tails because I do not have a problem with ID as a belief system or Evolution as one. My take on all this, is none of the details matter in the end. Either we are dust, or clouds. perhaps. --K3vin (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is all hand-waving. Do you have reliable sources that assert that this is not a parody? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I assert an assumption of non-parody when it comes to religion or religion like organizations. I feel the burden of proof in this instance is met by Universities classifying student groups as religious as enough to soften the language. That it was started as a joke, or that people all know - is not a valid argument when it comes to belief systems. If I state it is my religion, and it is not a parody, that is all it should take. see Joan of Arc. --K3vin (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The standard on Wikipedia is WP:V. And even if you we had a reliable source saying that K3vin takes his FSM belief seriously we'd still have massive undue weight issues. The bottom line is that we have multiple reliable sources including the New York Times calling this a parody religion. Without reliable sources asserting otherwise this isn't helpfu. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Some questions for you K3vin: are you genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia, or are you attempting to act out the FSM parody in a Wikipedia article? If the former, why then are you seeking to have us treat FSM as a real religion given the facts that A) FSM is a parody, and B) no-one believes otherwise? — Matt Crypto 08:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I come off insincere. I have strong opinions when it comes to freedom of religion. That this may or may nor be a parody is not my point of contention. It is the declaration of such. Where is the line drawn on what is considered parody. Is "al Keida" (sic) a parody of Islam? Are "snake handlers" a parody of Christians? Is "spiritualism" a parody? are the "anti-Missourian Norwegian Lutheran" synodites a parody of the Evangelical church of Germany? At what point do we stop following popular opinion and just keep opinion to be silent, or declare it opinion? Thats what I am doing. To anwer, yes I am, in good faith, trying to make WP better by not allowing declaritive statements that clearly are not from a neutral point of view. --K3vin (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you at the definition of parody: "work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation". None of your counterexamples might be considered a parody. As both reliable sources and common sense will indicate, FSM is a parody. — Matt Crypto 20:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
If we had reliable sources that that Al Quadea or snake handlers were parodies we'd need to worry about that. The reliable sources state that FSMism is a parody. Please read Wikipedia's verifiability policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC comments

  • I'd hesitate even to call this a parody religion. it seems to be satire, pure and simple. When Tina Fey plays Sarah Palin on SNL we don't say that she's a 'parody vice presidential candidate'; she's doing a parody of a vice presidential candidate, and there is no suggestion that she might actually be a vice presidential candidate in her own right. likewise here - the FSM was created entirely and specifically to ridicule a political movement by applying its logic in an absurd way; we should not suggest it was actually ever considered a serious religion. at best, I'd say something like "The Flying Spaghetti Monster is character created as part of a satirical attack on the intelligent design movement in the US. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also known as "Pastafarianism", was created by...". --Ludwigs2 21:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You are making a judgement that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies. Objective3000 (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Objective3000 - no, I have a rather low opinion of the Intelligent design argument. however, ID (as silly as it is) rests on the tenets of a well-established religious perspective: it was not intended as a mockery of anything (though I dare say it was a manipulative political gambit that has little to do with faith). the distinction I'm making is between an argument that's made which serious intent (and there is no doubt that the Christian far right was/is seriously concerned about the damage evolution theory does to central tenets of their faith), and something which is intended as sarcastic or sardonic humor. different language games entirely... when person A makes a serious attempt to do or say something utterly ridiculous, that's embarrassing or pathetic or annoying. when person B acts like person A in order to point out how utterly ridiculous what person A did was, that's (hopefully funny) satire. --Ludwigs2 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was not refering to Intelligent Design. I was refering to religion in general. Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, even so, Ludwigs2's comments are still apropos. Sincerity, or the lack of it, is what distinguishes a parody from what is parodied. In particular, something is not a parody merely because it's false, or absurd, or distasteful. To be honest, I believe this is obvious to everyone. The only reason it's debated here regularly is because people want to push the joke as far as possible, motivated by a desire to lampoon religion. What's fine as a joke, however, is not appropriate in the context of an encyclopedia. — Matt Crypto 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's just that they want to push the joke. there are a lot of people out there who just despise religion (and religions have, historically, given some pretty good reasons to be despised...). the problem is that a lot of these people see their position as objectively true (usually through a reference to some scientific or rationalistic understanding of the world), and can't quite accept that what they have is merely a perspective on a far more difficult question. but, whaddayagonnado? Objective has backpedalled to the point of saying that he thinks all religion is self-satire, but we obviously can't include that perspective (since we're not going to find reliable sources that agree with it), so let's go ahead and revise the lead and be done with it. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Umm, where did I backpedal or say anything was self-satire? What I am saying is that FSM is a parody of religion in general, not ID in specific. And that a judgement is being made that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies. Objective3000 (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I know, but in fact religion in general does not fall to the level of the FSM, either in satirical intent or quality of reasoning. saying so would imply that primary sources like the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud, the Buddhist scriptures and Hindu vedas (as well as innumerable religious and philosophical secondary sources) were all written with humor in mind, and are not ever taken seriously by anyone. that assertion flies in the face of common experience, and makes light of the millions of deaths that have been caused by religious warfare and persecution, and of the billions of people who have looked to religion for salvation. Further, there's no reliable sourcing to the effect that the FSM people were criticizing religion as a whole - they were quite explicitly focussed on the Intelligent Design movement and its political efforts. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate your belief that religion is absurd, and I'd even agree with you to a limited extent. however, if you want to make that claim on wikipedia, then find some sources that make the point, and argue them in on the article pages of real religions. don't use the Flying Spaghetti Monster article as your personal vehicle to make a point that you can't make in more appropriate places. --Ludwigs2 21:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I really think my statement was very clear. Yet you keep misinterpreting it. 1. I did not say religion in general is satirical. 2. I said nothing at all about my own beliefs. 3. I am not trying to make any personal point about religion at all. Please stop reading things into my very simple statement. That is "You are making a judgement that FSM is more absurd than that which it parodies." Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
yes, that's definitional. it is the nature and purpose of a parody. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
As the person that began this string, I want to re-emphasize my position. It is not' that FSM is a parody, or that religion is a parody. But that just because many objective resources says it is, is not enbough for a neutral point of view document, such as Wikipedia to say it is, within the context of its firsty paragraph. Any reader can discern for themselves without such labels, whether or not they take it seriouesly. I state again support for my position is cited in the refernece secion itself, where accredited institutions of higher learning classify FSM as a religion, negates any assertion that All reliable sources claim it to be parody. WP:Weasel words has been brought up. ALL is beyond recognition in a world of infinite opinions. --K3vin (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
There is no source which casts any doubt on the (entirely obvious) fact that FSM is a parody. Move along. — Matt Crypto 23:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
without supporting the current lead (which isn't so good), please note that issues of context and wp:weight come into play here. if in fact there are academic sources that classify FSM as a religion, then I'd like to know what that classification scheme is (because I suspect they classify it as a religion under the legal definition of religion in the US, which self-consciously errs on the side of caution). further, the fact that some sources classify it as a religion might present a noteworthy opinion should be included, but weight means that we have to present to primary view in reliable sources with greater weight and prominence. clearly the primary view is that it was presented as a parody, not establish as an active faith. and please, common sense: at this point in time, FSM is a purely intellectual exercise, with no adherents, no rituals or practices, no places of worship, no established structure or canon of beliefs, and no real meaning except in reference to other religions. in a hundred years, if FSM takes off and becomes a proper faith in its own right, then we can have this discussion again. for now, though, it's not. --Ludwigs2 23:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I keep meaning to comment, but have been very busy lately. Let me say briefly that I think Ludwigs2 makes a very good point. The key point here isn't whether FSM is a parody religion qua parody religion, but that it is an explicit satire of the ID movement to have creationism taught alongside evolution. Although I have felt in the past that "parody" already implicitly connotes the satirical aspect of the religion, it may be best and more informative to make that explicit in the first sentence of the article, as Ludwigs2 suggests in his original post. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

well, since discussion here is a bit sludgy, I'm going to edit in the change I suggested and see what response it gets. --Ludwigs2 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I like it! too!--K3vin (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Good work, let's see if it'll stick. Now I need to go get myself a plastic FSM for my dashboard.--Justfred (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
lol - you really should get an FSM antenna bobble, you know - it's supposed to be the Flying Spaghetti Monster. --Ludwigs2 22:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Move to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Another big change! I'd like to suggest the page is moved to Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as the page is about the organization, not the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible idea. Note that if the page is moved then an indirect will be set-up by default. So old links to the page will still work. If there is anyone who objects to the move, then please speak up now! Pnelnik (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I oppose that move. The claim that it's about the organization is debatable, and beside the point. A reader who wants to find this page will look here, not for the more convoluted title. P.S.: There is already a redirect from the "Church..." title to here, for anyone who does look there. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
agree with tryptofish. --Ludwigs2 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to continue this "parody religion" discussion, but...

This is just ridiculous. What qualifies a parody religion vs a non parody religion? First off, let me just clarify that I'm not a "bleever" as pastafarians would say (not that it should matter, but I just want to assure whoever is reading this that my point of view is neutral). I've just been following this for a long time and truly don't understand how Wikipedia can make such a distinction. Is there something in the guidelines I missed?

The definition of religion (according to dictionary.com) is: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

As far as I can interpret (keep in mind, I only have a measly university education), FSM meets all these qualifications (except for number 4 which really doesn't apply). I've read on the discussion page before that there are no "legitimate" articles calling FSM anything other than a parody religion. Even if that fact is true, it's quite obvious that these articles have no authority to make such claims, and thus should not be referenced for such. In fact, as far as I can tell by a google search, the only available source to be an authority on what constitutes a set of beliefs to be a parody (and more specifically FSM's belief system) is Wikipedia's Parody Religion article. However, since it's an open source encyclopedia that by it's nature can be edited by anybody, Wikipedia can't be an authority on any subject.

If anyone can adequately explain why FSM should be classified as a parody religion, please do. Otherwise I see it fit to remove parody as a qualifier for religion in this article. Some people obviously believe that this subject deserves an article, so as long as the article exists, I think I'm completely justified in demanding that it remain encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.223.136 (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A parody is "a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation." This is why FSM is classed as a parody. — Matt Crypto 10:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any evidence of a legitimate believer in the FSM, not counting Wikipedia editors? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 12:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
to make an analogy: you're basically asking why one of those joke cigars (you know, the ones with the tiny firecrackers inside, that explode when you smoke them), should be called a 'joke cigar' rather than just a plain old 'cigar'. the answer is self evident: no one wants to smoke a joke cigar - their entire purpose of joke cigars is to trick people who want to smoke real cigars. the goal of the FSM thing was to trick supporters of intelligent design into looking like fools, by making it impossible for them to advocate for ID without letting in FSM as well. that's why it's a parody religion rather than a religion. of course, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and some day pastafarianism might be a religion in its own right. but that day is not today... --Ludwigs2 22:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there any definitive proof that FSM was created as a parody? I'll give you that the overwhelming majority may view and interpret it as such, but until Bobby Henderson says he made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster and it's a parody, there is no verifiable proof of it being such, and thus violates Wikipedia's Verifiability policy.

Also, there is evidence of legitimate pastafarians on their website's forum. And the joke cigar is not a very good analogy, because there a joke cigar is not tobacco wrapped in a paper made for smoking, which is what the definition of a cigar is. FSM, on the other hand, meets the qualifications for a religion.

What I am arguing is that FSM meets all the qualifications of a religion and therefore should be classified as one. If you want to classify it as a parody religion, it should meet the qualifications of a parody religion. However, those are essentially nonexistent as the only source that provides adequate information on what constitutes a parody religion is Wikipedia.

I have absolutely zero interest in "pastafarianism," but in this case I'd suggest the burden of proof lies on the person arguing that it has a significant number of adherents who are genuinely convinced of the objective truth of its core precepts - "true believers," if you will. And honestly, even if we despise religion and believe that this is an excellent parody that masterfully parallels some of the claims of traditional religion, do you really think that by obstinately failing to "get the joke" and insisting on listing and describing this exactly like Islam or Judaism we somehow thereby strengthen the atheist position? I certainly don't, and even if I did, I think it would run the risk of falling afoul of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We might want to consider the advice in Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes - I'd suggest that this should be an article about a parody or satire, rather than a parody or satire itself. EastTN (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
geez, what an odd argument... of course, if you're asking me to prove that FSM isn't a real religion, then I'll confess I can't (any more than I can prove there aren't WMD's anywhere in Iraq). you can't ever prove a negative. if you have some evidence that FSM is a real religion, please provide it so that we can examine its worth. and yes, joke cigars are tobacco wrapped in paper, because they wouldn't fool anyone if they weren't. they just also happen to have small explosives.
tell you what. If Henderson really does use his $80,000 to build a Pirate ship and sail around the world giving candy to children, then that would be a good sign that we should take FSM seriously. till then... --Ludwigs2 23:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should say FSM is exactly like Islam or Judaism any more than we should say Scientology is exactly like Christianity or Hinduism, but we do classify Scientology as a religion. So I don't understand how calling Flying Spaghetti Monsterism a religion would violate the NPOV policy, since as I explained before, Pastafarianism meets the qualifications for a religion. In fact, I would say that calling it a parody religion violates a NPOV because then we are only seeing it from the side of the social criticism the idea of a Flying Spaghetti Monster brings and totally ignoring the fact that some people may and do believe in FSM. This is not about strengthening the atheist position, and whether it does or doesn't is irrelevant. Also, we would not be perpetuating a hoax simply by refraining from calling FSM a parody religion or even by outright classifying it as a religion. We would still have information on the Kansas School board and Henderson's letter to them, etc.

Also, if you can't prove that WMD's are not anywhere in Iraq, then Wikipedia has no business saying WMD's are not anywhere in Iraq. Instead it should say that WMD's have yet to be found in Iraq and at this point it is highly unlikely that there ever were WMD's in Iraq. In order to say outright that Pastafarianism isn't a real religion (which is what the article is effectively doing by calling it a parody religion), you have to prove that that it isn't a real religion. Also, notice how I added the qualifier "made for smoking" (and when I say smoking I think it is quite obvious I mean to draw smoke into the mouth and then puff out) when defining a cigar, which excludes a joke cigar from being classified as a real cigar. In order to exclude FSM from being a real religion, you have to find some way in which FSM violates the definition of religion.

I have already supported the claim that FSM by directing you to venganza.com's forum. Also, if I may point out, by stating that FSM is not a religion, the article is contradicting itself because later it refers to Pastafarians as if there are people who follow FSM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.223.136 (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"the fact that some people may and do believe in FSM" -- this is a strong indicator that you are trolling. — Matt Crypto 14:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
the fact that these comments are unsigned also seems to be a strong indicator of trolling.--Justfred (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Look, we have reliable sources that describe this as a parody. If you want to argue definitions, it fits the definition of a parody even better - "a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, or author, by means of humorous or satiric imitation." (I wouldn't arm wrestle you, though, if you wanted to argue that it is really satire - holding up human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement.) As for your quoting the website, referring "in universe" to the text of a parody to prove something factual about the real world makes as much sense as quoting Tina Fey's parodies of Sarah Palin to document the political positions of the Republican party. EastTN (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt Crypto, maybe you should read the entire discussion before weighing in next time. If you bothered to read it, you would see that I am making trying to make a valid argument and not just trying to cause a scene. And Justfred, if you have a problem with people who don't have accounts leaving unsigned comments, take that up with Wikipedia, not me. They obviously allow people to do that because that's what makes Wikipedia such a great tool - that anybody can edit it. I am not trolling. In fact, I would say you two are the ones trolling by making silly accusations to disrupt from the flow of this discussion. Why don't you to just leave this to the big boys, okay?

Please refrain from ad hominem. If you read the ENTIRE discussion, then (you have way too much time on your hands, and) you may notice that the argument that FSM is not a parody is almost exclusively put forward by anonymous. Your contribution history 128.192.223.136 shows only this discussion - generally this is a good indicator of the level of credence given to a contributor.--Justfred (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

While I will agree there are reputable sources calling Pastafarianism a parody, I cannot agree they are valid because they are not and there are not any authorities or experts on what constitutes a parody religion. Bobby Henderson, on the other hand, would be the considered foremost expert on all things FSM. So until he says FSM should be considered a parody religion, how can we call it that? Maybe or maybe not he is running a hoax, but that is not for Wikipedia to decide. Scientology may or may not be a scam, but Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Judaism and Buddhism etc. meet the definition of a religion, so that's what we should label it as.

To wrap up this discussion quicker, let's make this a make this simpler and stop going all over the place. I have shown how FSM meets all the requirements of a religion, so in order for it to not be a real religion, there must have been a requirement for religion that I missed or misinterpreted. So what is it? Or am I wrong in thinking if something meets the definition of a category that it does not fall into that category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.223.136 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Aside from acknowledged sources stating it's a parody (though you apparently don't recognize them as such: "I cannot agree they are valid because they are not") this is simple Prima facie (or perhaps Res ipsa loquitur). There is no source for FSM NOT being a parody - this has been repeated here ad nauseum. There are no sources for people taking FSM as an actual religion, aside from people here claiming it - without that, it certainly does not meet the definition of a practiced religion or even a credible religious philosophy. Find reputable sources that outweigh the sources saying it's a parody - the burden of proof is on you.--Justfred (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Justfred, I have restrained myself from using ad hominem attacks. It is you and Matt Crypto who used them when both you dismissed me as a troll. I was only defending myself by proving your behavior was more trollish than mine. Also, you are using an ad hominem attack again by trying to dismiss my argument because the only thing I have contributed to Wikipedia under this ip is to this discussion page. Even if this is the only article I have tried to contribute to, it shouldn't detract from my points. Maybe I just want to deal with one issue until moving onto the next one. In any case, I have contributed many times to Wikipedia before I moved to my current location, where my ip is different.

As for a reputable source who says this is a real religion, I have already mentioned Bobby Henderson. Since he is the major "prophet" of this religion and viewed as the creater, if he says it's a real religion that he follows, what more sources do you need? If you are asking me to outweigh the sources that say FSM is a parody by sheer quantity, you have given me an impossible task, and one that is also irrelevant. So if Bobby Henderson, the prophet for FSM is not a good enough source for whether his religion is real or not, who/what is? USA Today? The New York Times? These are the sources the Wikipedia article uses to classify FSM as a parody religion, but explain to me why they get the final say on whether FSM as a religion is real or not. Why do news organizations, who's job is to report what's happening in the world, overrule Bobby Henderson on deciding whether FSM is a real religion or not? And while it may seem FSM is parodic, as you claim, that is not an argument. Jello Biafra may have seemed like parodical candidate to the overwhelming majority of the San Francisco population in their 1979 San mayoral election, he was a legitimate candidate nonetheless.

You also asked me to provide evidence of real FSM followers, which I have also already done (which is why it is helpful to read the entire discussion section). If you go to http://www.venganza.org/forum/, which is probably the largest gathering of FSM followers, you will see there are over 5500 members. Now I realize probably not all of these are Pastafarians, but if you read the posts, you will find that there are a significant number of people who claim they are indeed Pastafarians (which by the nature of a belief system is all that is required (Again, if I am wrong, please explain what the other accepted requirement is for someone to be an adherent of a religion)). If that forum isn't a good enough source to prove that Pastafarians exist, tell me what universal method is good enough for proving the existence of people who follow the same faith. 128.192.223.136 (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Would someone please explain why this is being argued? The opening paragraph states “The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a character created as a satirical protest”. Isn’t it obvious that the whole thing is a parody? Greg L (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
How can you know that FSM was "created as a satirical protest"? How do you know, or anybody for that matter, the intent of Bobby Henderson? Maybe when he heard that it was likely Kansas School Board was going to integrate a (for the most part Christian) theory of ID into the biology/evolution curriculum and thought if they were gonna do that they might as well (and legally should) include the Flying Spaghetti Monster he worshipped (or heard about or created or did-whatever-you-think-he-did-that-can't-be-proved-without-Henderson's-word). 128.192.223.136 (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, if you were an Intelligent Designer coming back from centuries of inaction, what better way to restore the true religion to its former glory than sending a prophet to the very place that is on the verge of teaching Intelligent Design to the masses? 82.80.85.38 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(← unidented)

  • I see… a *controversial* issue. Just because it’s controversial doesn’t raise the burden of proof here; common sense is all that is required, IMO.

    Anyone with a detailed understanding of what the struggle over the Kansas State Board of Education decision was about would realize that Bobby Henderson’s open letter was clearly intended to be satirical. Arguments to the contrary are not even falsifiable: even if some Wikipedian somewhere contacted Mr. Henderson himself and asked him what his motivations were, some would undoubtedly claim that the research constituted a violation of WP:OR. On one side of ‘Kansas’ dispute were those who wanted supernatural explanations to explain the natural world. On the other side were people like Mr. Henderson, who clearly was using satire to drive home the point that once you head down the slippery slope of attempting to explain the natural world as being the product of supernatural processes, then you can’t simply have a show of hands one morning to decide which religion will be afforded a state-sanctioned endorsement (awe shucks, those who believe in polytheism, like Ancient Greek religion, Native American religions, and Hawaiian religion loose out). So Mr. Henderson concocted a new “religion” that he was certain would be received as absurd, wherein the creator was a Spaghetti Monster in order to drive home this point.

    The pro-I.D. forces also didn’t do themselves a favor in Federal court. The proponents of intelligent design swore under oath in Federal court that the “Intelligent Designer” mentioned in “Of Pandas and People” had nothing whatsoever to do with creationism nor God. However, a researcher, examining draft manuscripts of the book provided by the publisher found that every instance of “design proponents” had originally been “creationists”. Further, she found a “transitional fossil” in an intermediate draft. One instance of “creationists” had been incompletely converted in a copy/paste error, and took the form of “cdesign proponentsists”. I’m certain the I.D. proponents had good intentions and rationalized their use of lying under oath for a greater good. I’m sure the Spanish Conquistadors felt the same when they spread their gospel in the New World. But the I.D. proponents didn’t come off looking so good in the process and undermined the very message they were trying to promote. Greg L (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


    P.S. I also think it is unfortunate that the true Wikipedian titles of the above three articles are Greek mythology, Native American mythology, and Hawaiian religion, only Hawaiian religion has the proper title; the first two embody the arrogance of modern western authors who have seemingly used a “show of hands” to decide what constitutes a *True Religion* and what should apparently be backhanded with the moniker of “mythology” due to (what they think) is a matter of there being too few modern adherents. Most unfortunate since, as I live in the American Northwest, I would only have to drive 40 minutes to get to an “Indian reservation” where I can find many adherents of their “mythology”. Both the “mythology” titles should be revised to “religion.” This is one instance where Encyclopedia Britannica has it done right. Greg L (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, I'll forgive Greg L's heresy of suggesting that the FSM is nothing but a mere construct. We all know that the FSM is very real, as evidenced by the touch of His Noodly Appendages on the cosmic, the mundane and the microscopic. "Modern western authors" is a rather ambiguous term, especially coined with an accusation of the POV of mythology/religion. Theologians readily use the term "myth" and "mythology" to refer to religions and beliefs. Christian theologians will speak of the Christian myths and mythology, even the American ones, and many will speak of the Atheistic myths and mythology as well. "Mythology" is not used in a derogatory manner, but rather as a sort of all-emcompassing term to refer to the various foundation of dogmas and outlooks on the nature of things. The "mythology" of Dawkins/Harris sort of atheism would be the emphasis on the value of rationality and skepticism. Their "myths" would include Occam's Razor and Copernicanism for instance.
The "myth=obviously false" vs "religion=It's a respectable position, unlike those myths" is not a product of western thought. Well rather not a product of the western scholars with serious formal backgrounds, but rather of layfolks gradually introducing a distinction where none existed as a mean to vindicate themselves. See myth as well as religion and mythology for more details and supplemental reading. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 08:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
FSM Manifests in space as an entire galaxy. Proof! :) Fnagaton 14:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I love you two guys’ links; particularly, your “mundane” link Headbomb. Funny. The face of The Creator. Greg L (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's not get too worked up here. Please see the articles on Christian mythology, Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology. Then please take a look at the articles on Paganism, Eastern religion, Polytheism, Celtic polytheism, Aztec religion, Maya religion, Norse paganism, Shamanism, Animism, African traditional religion, Folk religion, Chinese folk religion, Religion in ancient Greece, Religion in ancient Rome, Finnish paganism, Baltic mythology, Slavic mythology, Germanic paganism, Ancient Semitic religion, Prehistoric religion, Religions of the Ancient Near East, Ancient Egyptian religion and Historical Vedic religion. Should we be more consistent in our naming conventions for these articles? Possibly. But it simply isn't true that we're consistently describing large, modern, western belief systems as "religions" and older, more obscure and non-western belief systems as "mythologies." In many cases we're looking at both the religious and mythological aspects of belief systems, and separating them out into different articles - as in Greek mythology and Religion in ancient Greece, and Jewish mythology and Judaism. Have we gotten there yet for on all of these belief systems? No. But it's not such a bad direction to be headed in. EastTN (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, anyways, back to the topic of FSM. Greg L, it looked like you were a little torn on the issue, but went towards the side that FSM is not a religion. First of all, of course many things relating to religion are not falsifiable - that is common when it comes to religion. Also, you say that Henderson's letter was an obvious joke. I disagree.

I'll agree so far that it is obvious that that most of the Kansas School Board took Henderson's letter as satirical (as is evidenced by their letters). And I'll agree that he didn't like the Kansas School Board talking about teaching a Christian version of ID in school (that is evidenced by interviews). And just hypothetically, let's say he sent the letter to make a point. However, that would not make FSM a "fake" religion. For example, soon enough Hindus might have sent a letter demanding that Kansas teach their version of ID in schools to prove a point (because they know the school board would never agree), but that does not make Hinduism any less of a religion.

Anyways, nobody has answered the ultimate question: What attribute does FSM lack that invalidates it from being a real religion? It is obviously a belief system and I have shown evidence of true followers. Now the burden of proof is on someone who says FSM is not a real religion. If nobody can appropriately answer the question, then we should change the article to say that FSM is (just) a religion. (Keep in mind, that does not mean we would remove any information on the Kansas School Board and/or related information, because that would create a hoax, which is against Wikipedia's policies.) 128.192.223.136 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

  • To all here: I am quite impressed with the calm, level-headed, even humorous tone others have struck here. It makes participating here much more enjoyable.

    To 128.192.223.136: With regard to your question “What attribute does FSM lack that invalidates it from being a real religion?”, I would suggest that it (probably) lacks any adherents who believe there really is a Flying Spaghetti Monster with His Noodly Appendages who created the Universe. And…

    To EastTN and your 17:25, 10 November 2008 post: I wasn’t worked up and I can’t see that anyone else here has been so. Your sage caution that no one here get their panties in a bunch does not somehow establish you as a calm, wise voice of reason (a *big picture* kinda guy); particularly when the effort to posture as such seems so deliberate. Please take that observation as a bit of constructive feedback.

    To EastTN and others here: The following isn’t a critisizm of any particular person here, but are my observations about a particular mentality. As to the issue of whether or not old religions should ever be backhanded with the “mythology” label, I find it to be a breathtaking display of arrogance on Wikipedia’s part (shared responsibility) to label it Native American mythology. There are many, many Native Americans who truly and sincerely believe their beliefs are true. I’d sure like to see some howlie caucasian (which I happen to be) drive onto some reservation somewhere, approach some American Indians, and tell them that their belief system is just part of mythology and somehow doesn’t deserve being accorded the title of a religion, as does all the *Major Western True Religions*. If no one else here “gets” what I am referring to here, let me ask you this: what if I told you that you believed in Modern Christian mythology? Oh… now you get it?? In my opinion, we should follow what Encyclopedia Britannica’s policy appears to be: Any supernatural belief system that has, or once had, believers should properly be called a “religion”. Further, if a common-sense analysis shows there are no modern adherents, then it can have “ancient” appended into the title. Thus, it should always be Hawaiian religion, and Native American religion, and Ancient Greek religion. Greg L (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is now getting quite off-topic, but I believe you're taking offense over a misunderstanding. Our article on Christian mythology bears a relevant boxout: "In its academic sense, the word myth simply means "a traditional story", whether true or false. Unless otherwise noted, the words mythology and myth are here used for sacred and traditional narratives, with no implication that any belief so embodied is itself either true or false." See similar assertions at Mythology#Religion and mythology or Religion_and_mythology#Truth and falsehood. When "myth" is used to mean "sacred narrative", rather than "falsehood", and the word is clearly indicated as being used in that way, then there is little cause to read "breathtaking displays of arrogance" into the chosen nomenclature. — Matt Crypto 21:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Greg L, I'm glad to take that as constructive feedback, and I apologize if my comments came off the wrong way. It did strike me, rightly or wrongly, that we were starting to squirrel off on a discussion of whether or not Wikipedia editors are, as a whole, marginalizing non-Western religions by using the term "mythology." I agree that native American religions should be taken seriously. Should that article be renamed? Yes, of course. On the other hand, looking at the broad sweep of articles dealing with religion, I don't see a consistent pattern of marginalizing non-Western religions, or religions that have fewer adherents than what we might consider the "major" religions of the world (say, for instance, the top dozen by number of adherents).
As I mentioned, there is in fact an article on Christian mythology, and no, I don't take offense over it. Neither do I take offense over the articles on Jewish mythology and Islamic mythology. Frankly, I think there should be both a Native American religion and a Native American mythology article. Going further, the current content of the Native American mythology article looks me as if it would be more appropriate for the "religion" article (though it's not much more than a stub at this point).
Again, I apologize if I've given offense to you or anyone else. I could very well be mistaken - the pattern may be there, and I'm just missing it. In any event, I hope this explanation gives you a better idea of where I was coming from. I do think, as a general rule, that the pairing of "religion" and "mythology" articles to describe a belief system and its related narratives makes a great deal of sense, and that the Christianty/Christian mythology, Judaism/Jewish mythology, Islam/Islamic mythology, Religion in ancient Greece/Greek mythology and Religion in ancient Rome/Roman mythology pairings are good examples of how that can be made to work.
As Matt Crypto points out, we've gotten way off topic, so I'll drop the issue. It's really not relevant to the FSM article. EastTN (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
P.S. It turns out that this has been discussed on the Talk:Native American mythology page. There wasn't a consensus, because the more specific articles it points to are titled "mythology" (and, in the case of several I looked at quickly, they do seem to focus on the traditional narratives). I've thrown in the suggestion that a parallel "Native American religion" article be created to point to those articles that do talk more specially about the belief systems and ritual practices. I don't know how the editors working on that page will react. If you feel strongly about it, you may want to comment there. EastTN (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, EastTN… your effusive apologies made me feel like a bit of a rat now. The maturity, tone, and constructiveness of the arguments by everyone on this page is truly striking. Debate on WT:MOSNUM over binary prefixes (megabyte v.s. mebibyte) was far more vitriolic than the goings-on here (a religion-based discussion forum). Interesting.

    I doubt I will go over to Talk:Native American mythology, don orange robs, douse myself with gasoline, and set myself alight over this issue; tackling this principle one by one would likely prove a thoroughly frustrating experience. Sometimes just salting a talk forum, as I did here, and letting a message percolate a bit does a great deal of good. Wikipedia policies are like a train: one has to be patient and allow ideas to gain momentum. Besides, my basic sense of “fairness” has been satisfied with the knowledge that there is a Christian mythology article. Greg L (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel like a rat on my account! It's all part of the normal back-and-forth. EastTN (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You give us too much credit Greg L. This is just a conversation about religion. Megabytes vs. Mebibytes represent a hyper-controversial issue. On one end you have the fanatics who want more of the same because they are scared of losing the only file storage terminology they have ever known while on the other end you have the lunatics want unambiguity and to destroy traditional families.

Anyways, back to religion: I would have to agree that we need to remove the term mythology from describing aspects of these these non-mainstream religions (and mainstream religions as well). While mythology does not necessarily have to mean false, many times it is used to mean exactly that, so Wikipedia should use a more accurate word/term. After we finish here, we should not forget to do this.

Now, more specifically, back to FSM and it's current clasification as a parody (as in 'not real') religion: Greg L, you said that FSM probably lacks real adherents who believe that there really is a Flying Spaghetti Monster who created the world with his Noodly Appendage. Well, I have already shown evidence (which has yet to be refuted) of claim to believe exactly that. Now do any of them REALLY believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster? I can't answer that question any better that I can answer the question "do any of the 2 billion people who claim to be Christian REALLY believe that Jesus is going to make a second coming and smite those who didn't/don't believe in him?" If people to either of these questions exist, there are obviously gonna be those calling them delusional. But anyhow, questioning what people REALLY believe is out of Wikipedia's scope and would be a very slippery slope - not to mention a violation of Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. Now, if there was a reputable source saying that absolutely none of the people who claim to be Pastafarians REALLY believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, then your argument might be valid. But that will never happen.

Anyways, so unless someone can adequately point how FSM does not meet some standard of determining a religion (for those of you just tuning in, the burden on proof is not on me, I have already shown how FSM DOES meet ALL the known standards of determining a religion. Now it's your turn to point out something I missed or why I am wrong) in the the next couple of days, I will remove the parody qualifier from religion in the main article. 128.192.223.136 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Interesting argument, 128.192.223.136. Outside the realm of mathematics, few things are absolute. Your argument above is solidly structured on the requirement that if anyone believes it’s true, then it is a religion. Our Apollo 11 article doesn’t use weasel words regarding the Moon landing even though there are thousands of people who think the Moon landings were faked on a sound stage. I think all that is needed here for determining whether or not the text in the article is sound is the application of common-sense. Even there *might* be a few individuals who believe that a Spaghetti Monster created the Universe, Bobby Henderson created it as a parody and most “followers” feel as he does. In Henderson’s FAQ, he makes his views clear enough (“Supernatural explanations are by definition not science, so why would you teach them in a science classroom?”). I think the current wording in the article here accurately represents what The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really about.

    A final thought. Your writings here are thought provoking and civil. I’m not invested in this article to make a stink about your last sentence, but I would encourage you to not edit against the consensus here. Greg L (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we just go with what all reliable sources say and call it a parody religion? The one source that has been brought up here is the FSM forum. Now forums are as a matter of course not considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia. Moreover, 128.192.223.136 placed this forum under even more doubt with this:

I realize probably not all of these are Pastafarians, but if you read the posts, you will find that there are a significant number of people who claim they are indeed Pastafarians...

Some people posting to a joke forum who may (or may not) have been so dim as to fail to get the joke is not convincing evidence. Since we have quality sources showing that this "religion" was invented as a satire of the intelligent design movement, and other high quality sources saying that it is a "parody religion", we should go with what these sources say until other sources of comparably high quality are brought up here. And no, we don't need to engage in the above trolling philosophical debate concerning the nature of religion and other nonsense. Here at Wikipedia, we make decisions based on the quality and content of sources. So far, IP, you haven't given what we consider a valid source. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with what Silly rabbit wrote. His reasoning too is based on common sense. Existential ponderings as to whether there might or might not be a single Pastafarian who actually believes a can of Beefaroni created the universe (and whether or not the discovery of said individual might constitute WP:OR) is all beside the point. We’ve wasted enough of everyone’s time over this now. Time to move on. Greg L (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. When I wrote earlier that thousands of Americans think the moon landings were fake, that was an understatement; roughly fifteen million Americans think they were faked. This documented fact does not require that our Apollo 11 article begin with “Many people believe the Apollo 11 mission was the first manned mission to land on the Moon.” We rely upon credible sources here at Wikipedia. Speaking of existential: who created Mr. Boyardee? Greg L (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything more here, but I feel like I do. I won't be changing the article removing the parody qualifier from religion. It's not because I believe I am wrong, because I would actually be right if I did so. I really do hate to talk with excessive pride, but it would be quite obvious to the impartial observer that my argument truly trumped all of yours. The proof of this is that I refuted every single one of the points that people brought against my argument, but no one (or even all of you combined) refuted all (or even close to all) of my points. That's because not one of ya'll were able to discuss things with an open mind, so you just conveniently ignored some of what I ahd to say. So I will not change the article because I know the "concensus" would just change it back, either in ten minutes or a two weeks. The fact is, even if USA Today and New York Times (the two oh so high quality sources which are experts on religion that Wikipedia uses to justify calling FSM a parody religion) come out with articles that treat FSM as a real religion, the concensus would still be to call FSM a parody religion. We would just have to cite the other sources. 128.192.223.136 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, just to reiterate, FSM is a parody because it was invented as a satire explicitly to lampoon the intelligent design movement. So far no one has provided a single shred of evidence to contradict this one fact. All sources we have been able to dig up (except for joke forums and certain editors here) agree that FSM is a parody, and most importantly no one has come up with a single reliable source contradicting this. If, as you clearly believe, your arguments clearly show that FSM is not a parody religion, then I'm sure some religious studies journal would jump at the chance to publish your ideas. Until that time, however, Wikipedia cannot accept your original research. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
It must indeed be upsetting to have your earnest and compelling arguments about how Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a real religion simply ignored or overruled by a bunch of closed-minded bigots. I'm sure you'll cope. — Matt Crypto 13:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I might shed a tear when I think about all the cans of Beefaroni I’ve ever eaten. After all, they are His children. Greg L (talk) 04:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break (for editing ease)

There is a major point that is being missed. Pastafarianism is a parody religion, but it is still a religion. The criteria that it must be believed to be factual is invalid.--RLent (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, it's a parody of religion. EastTN (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So many people keep saying there is no reliable source to suggest that Pastafarianism is a legitimate religion. But isn't the official site of the religion itself the most reliable source of all? I cited this more than a year ago under this section but not a single person has yet responded to the reliability of this particular source. Here it is again for you:

http://www.venganza.org/about/

This is a source that refers to it as a legitimate religion and directly contradicts claims that it is purely satire. So why should the two current sources for a "parody religion" be relied on over what the founder himself has said on the religion's official website? If Dan Vergano from USA Today decides to call it a parody religion, why does that make Bobby Henderson wrong? Symphonien (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The website is satirical, and therefore not a reliable source. — Matt Crypto 17:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Just because the religion has satirical elements, that doesn't stop it from being a valid religion if that's what they choose to call it. All I'm saying is that I don't see why we shouldn't refer to it with the term the Pastafarians themselves use to refer to it. For example, I could call this website satirical but that doesn't make me a more reliable source than L. Ron Hubbard who founded the religion, and his followers who believe it is a legitimate religion. Why would it be invalid then to refer to Pastafarianism as a religion and cite the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the religion's official website as sources? The website may indeed appear satirical but it is still the official website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, written by its founder Bobby Henderson and as such surely cannot be refuted as a source, especially when other sections of the same website have already been referenced to provide the information on the central tenets of this belief system that have enabled this Wikipedia article to be written in the first place. If the religion's own website and founder are not reliable sources according to you, then this Wikipedia article should not exist at all. Symphonien (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that Scientology does not cite use it's creator's own words to cite that "Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices..." nor should it, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources which states quite clearly that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" if we were to cite Bobby Henderson, that would not be using a third-party source - do you have a third party source that says it is not a parody, or even that it is a religion recognised by any particular body that would be qualified to recongise such entities?--Alf melmac 10:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
heavens... let's try a little honesty here. are you (you, personally) offended because what's written in this wikipedia article violates a a deeply held belief of your own? or are you just making an intellectual argument about how it's impossible to tell what other people might or might not seriously believe? if the latter (which, frankly, both of us know is the case), then fine: the point has been made, we all get it, so let it go. continuing this argument only magnifies the damage that fundamentalist Christianity has been inflicting on spirituality every since they made the decision to go political. you're doing what they do; is that what you want? let me spell it out for you.
  • Political behavior of fundamentalist Christians (of a particular inclination, mind you, not all of them)
    1. they claim to know the truth (because it's written in the bible).
    2. they insist that no one can tell them that they don't know the truth (because that would be offensive to their religion).
    3. they use point 2 as leverage in an effort to get the truth they know written into the rules that everyone has to follow.
and here you are claiming point (1) for the pastafarians, and using the tactic in (2) to try to (3) change what everyone on wikipedia reads.
Henderson's satire was sharp - it effectively short-circuited a Machiavellian political strategy. the pastafarian thing was and is a whole lot of fun for a whole lot of people - no problems there. however, what you're doing here is just a grind - you're belaboring the point excessively and taking all the fun out of it. Nobody wants pastafarianism to be a serious, true religion, because the minute that it becomes serious and true it loses its power as satire, loses its ability to be an embarrassing comparison, and suddenly we might find ourselves actually having to teach pastafarianism in public schools right along with creationism. get the point, or the FSM will smite you with a steaming torrent of marinara.
I don't think you have gotten my own point yet. I am not a Pastafarian. I am not interested in what "nobody wants" regarding Pastafarianism or what constitutes "taking all the fun out of it". As Wikipedia editors, I don't think it is very credible to apply such personal agendas to decide how articles are written. Instead, I think we would be better off to look at things objectively and therefore call the religion what its founder and followers call it: a religion. Your use of a comparison with Christian fundamentalism is thus not only irrelevant as a guilt by association fallacy but is also flawed in its premises. I never claimed that Pastafarians "know the truth" but only that they are entitled to their religious beliefs if that is what they choose to call them. As I stated above in response to Matt Crypto, if the official Pastafarian website (and gospel) is used as a source for much of the information in the "Beliefs" section, then why shouldn't it also be used to describe the nature of the belief system itself? Symphonien (talk) 10:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
If the information about what the supposed beliefs were on another reilable site, I would prefer to exchange them instead of the current source, but this is very much like Dr Who articles - the best source is usually the BBC, who are not third party, and while that is not sufficient to satisfy notability, it is enough to fill in the plot lines and reasons behind the actions. Mind you Dr Who does not make any claim that Dr Who is God as the FSM site does...
And on taking a second look - two sources from Henderson are used in the Beliefs section - the open letter (cite number 4) and the website itself (cite number 25) which are used in lines such as "The canonical beliefs of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism are set forth by Henderson in the Open Letter,[4] the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and on Henderson's web site,[25] where he is described as a prophet." which I don't think is overworking a non-third party cite - in fact it's a darned good use of it. The majority of the cites in that section use other sources backed up by detail of the open letter - again seems aposite to the information recorded. Do you have any new cites which can shed any new light on this, such as a list of registered charities listed under religious groups inlcuding the Church of the FSM, or maybe a governmental agency/department allowing usage for a building to be a Church of the FSM or similar?--Alf melmac 10:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Symphonien: I've gotten the point being made, but apparently you can't yet see how ridiculous it is. wikipedia is not obligated to treat James Bond, Jason Vorhees, or Santa Claus as though they are real individuals (though movie theaters and parents will often insist on it); wikipedia is not obligated to treat soap operas, romantic comedies or docu-dramas as though they are true facts, even when the opening credits state explicitly that 'the following story is true'; wikipedia does not need to treat a belief as real when it's clear that the 'believers' are offering the belief not because they believe it, but for some other political, financial, or social purpose. In short, wikipedia does not need to be stupider than the rest of the population as a matter of misguided principle. why would you want it to be? --Ludwigs2 19:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So what you're saying is, anyone who believes because his parents hold the same religion or to fit in with the society around him is not a "real" believer, since he does it for social purposes. I firmly believe Flying Spaghetti Monster is more real than most other deities. I don't pretend to hold this belief, but hold this position after a detailed study of Pastafarianism and other religions. As a more encompassing and non-anthropomorphized deity, FSM is less open to criticism of its nature and has less inconsistencies with the real world around us. Being an agnostic believer, my stance is that we can't be certain of FSM existence, but it's much more likely that it's FSM and not any other gods. Please don't use the True Pastafarian fallacy against me. 82.80.85.38 (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
nooooo... parents do not teach their children their religion for some other political, financial, or social purpose. they teach their children their religion because that's what the parents believe. further, believing that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster is more real than most other deities" is not the same as believing that the FSM is a physically real and present god. believers in other faiths do not believe that their god is 'more real than other gods', they believe that their god is real, and other gods are false (or in some cases that all gods are real). in fact, the assertion that something is 'more real' is a tacit admission that it is false, since 'real' in an absolute word (not a relative one). Russell's teapot is a great intellectual reductio ad absurdem argument; trying to build a rocket to find it would miss the 'absurdem' part of the argument, and show a complete lack of common sense. likewise the FSM. --Ludwigs2 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, this is a joke. For argument's sake, let me represent a Pastafarian. My story goes: I used to be an agnostic looking for God and one day Bobby Henderson opened my eyes and I saw a Flying Spaghetti Monster and I knew he was real. Ever since that day, I have been a Pastafarian. This is my BELIEF. I am an ADHERENT to this belief. Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is my RELIGION. How can Wikipedia or the New York Times or The Washington Post accurately say my religion is false? They can't. And neither can Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's purpose is not classyfying religions as legitimate and false. There are people who adhere to FSM, and that is all it needs for Wikipedia to view it as legitimate. 128.192.21.125 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Mr 128.192.21.125, makes a good point. Though I would go further. Throughout history it has been common for people to publicly state that they have faith in religion, but in reality they don't. 2,000 years ago Roman senators would pretend to believe in the Roman gods because it would help them get elected. In the Catholic Church, Mother Teresa is a fine example. In private letters and diaries she wrote of the utter silence of prayer, the fact that she couldn't ever hear God answer back led her to question his existence. In contrast, in public, when asked if she ever had doubts, she would bluntly reply 'no'. Also I think that there is lots of evidence to suggest that Obama does not believe in God. However for political reasons, this is not something that he could ever be honest about. So my point is that for something to be called a religion it is not important whether or not people actually believe in it. As long as they say the do that's enough. I am now hereby stating that I'm a follower of reformed pastafarianism. Some may question my honesty in that statement. The fact that I've made the claim is not up for debate. So there is at least one person (me) who claims to believe in Pastafarianism. Whether or not the founder (Bobby Henderson) claims that the whole religion is a parody is not relevant. For something to be called a religion, it is not necessary for the beliefs to be sensible, it does not matter if the founders don't believe in it. There are plenty of people who start religions for strange reasons (eg the convicted con-artist Joseph Smith). It also is not important if people genuinely believe in it. All that is required is that people claim to believe. And I do. (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Pnelnik

Belated reply

I wonder if it's a good idea to revive this discussion which seem to be semi dead but here goes. We can argue ad infinitum about whether FSM is a true religion. But wikipedia isn't the place for such an argument. The only issue that should concern us is what do the reliable secondary source say? The venganza website is not a reliable secondary source. It's not even a reliable primary source for most things. So it's immediately out. We do have two reliable secondary sources which say it's a parody. Until and unless we have reliable secondary sources calling FSM a religion, any arguments about why it should or shouldn't be called a religion are OT and irrelevant and could legitimate be deleted (but I'm not suggesting we actually do that). Editors are welcome to their opinions, but their personal opinions about whether FSM is a religion or whether they believe in the FSM or how Christianity and other religions compare to FSM are, as always on wikipedia when it comes to random editor opinions, irrelevant. The only thing we care about is what the sources say Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster/Archive_7&oldid=1136732312"