This site is frustrating because these “pastafarians” just use this mock religion to bash on everyone else’s beliefs. there are pieces in the Bible that seem absurd… talking animals, reanimated corpses, the ground opening up and swallowing people, etc. but nothing that takes THIS great a leap in logic. God isn’t a “bearded man on a cloud” He’s the creative force in this universe. hell isn’t a place where you can “chill with friends, but boy is it hot in here”… hell is a place reserved for Satan, and the people who he deceives into following him there. don’t take all this as “shoving my religion down your throat” take it as a clarification of some misunderstandings some pastafarians seem to have about Christianity. the obvious point behind this website is to say “hey you believe in God without proof, well we believe in noodles, and since they already exist, that counts as proof”… well basically, it’s not proof people should look for in spirituality… it’s doctrine. pastafarian doctrine is an obvious farce. the Bible has integrity. where all these other “religious books” fall short, the Bible stands firm. you guys couldn’t even come up with an original name… it had to be ripped off from the Rastafarians… give the Bible a try, an honest try.
Peace and Love for my fellow humans,
Joe
When I first came to this site, it directed me to a letter written to a school. I still think that, like people do, pastafarians search for truth. The question is what belongs in rational, academic discourse. Science never affords absolute certainty, but certainly the truths science affords us usefully true. Observation and rationalization about relationships between physical entities leads to a deeper understanding of the universe and lends itself to the betterment of mankind. That is why we do science, and it has little to do with cosmic truth. When I formulate a theory, I fashion it out of the facts I can find using tools from logic, and then the theory becomes a tool: if it works to predict future phenomena then it is a good tool. But even if it is a good tool, that doesn’t indicate that it is absolutely true. On a uselessly philosophical level, very little can be considered absolutely true and known.
The point is, in academia, in the realm of purely rational, we deal in the usefully true, and there really isn’t a place for the absolutely true. It doesn’t fit in the conversation. Arguments based on faith may be valid, faith may be valid, but it is not valid in the universe of logical discourse. Necessarily so, as the FSM points out, since there is no way to logically validate one faith over another. That’s the point. That’s the whole point. It’s not that Christianity is wrong, or that all faith is wrong, only that faith is wrong in the context of rational discourse.
Maybe you choose to live a purely rational life. In that case, you would have to abandon your faith, along with all kinds of other things that make you human. I don’t believe that everyone on this site believes that you should eradicate everything that cannot be rationalized. Art would be gone, and love, and all kinds of human things. There may be chemical reasons for all the acceptable madnesses like love and faith and ambition, but I believe that at some point human experience transcends equations. So look for truth along with everyone else, accept what you are convinced of, even if you can’t necessarily rationalize it. But at least in schools, at least in the realm of logical discourse, allow that these things don’t belong. That doesn’t mean they belong no where.
I know that not everything I believe is rational, but obviously I still believe those things to be true. That’s OK. As long as I don’t try to make those beliefs into something they aren’t, can’t be, and were never meant to be: universal axioms. No one has ever been argued into being a Christian; that’s a contradiction to faith. Teach the usefully true in school, let everyone search for absolutes on their own. This is what truly gives faith a chance.
Thank (Madam, I assume?) Sosostris for quite possibly redeeming MY faith – in internet commentary. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head when it comes to religious tolerance, and the purpose of FSM: to help maintain the balance between personal belief and public education. It would be all to easy to fall into one extremism or another; there are people with closed minds among both the religious and atheistic communities. FSM isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) about telling the religious that they’re wrong. This is not only a losing battle, but one completely contrary to the purpose of the original open letter to the Kansas School Board. That was about keeping the classroom the aforementioned realm of rational discourse, keeping the unproven and unprovable in the personal.
Humans are social creatures, and the temptation to try to bring others over to your own point of view is an unavoidable and often laudable instinct, yet it has obvious downsides. Despite the social connectivity of our age and the growth of forums for debate like the internet, the simple fact is that not everyone will come to the same conclusions about some matters that are very important to them. Questions about faith and purpose are complicated and different for everyone, and so are the answers we come up with. Proving these personal convictions logically is both impossible and irrelevant, they are a part of you. As Sosostris has shown, there is nothing wrong with this. The trick is recognizing what beliefs can be commonly accepted, and for that we turn to something which can be shared and understood: reason.
FSM, when simply used as a means to mock the beliefs of others, is indeed crude and ‘frustrating’. But it works much better as a means of pointing out the ridiculousness of imposing private beliefs on a public system. It’s clever and playful way of approaching debate, one that I wish was more widely used; trying to get people to laugh and think rather than just shout them down.
Best of luck to everyone on their own absolutes.
Seriously, I have nothing against all of you, except for the writer. The pastafarians have the right to believe what they want, I am personally a Laveyan satanist, and no, I know I’m not going to hell, whether you like it or not.
As I read, “Religion … appears to act as a social control mechanism, very similar to sociology,
psychiatry and psychology, which appear to be the new religions to
control people. The average species only lasts something like five
million years. So religion and God as the religious refers to some human
construct which has become …an ideology, will die in the next few
million years.” (Nemesis 2009, http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=30572).
So, no, the pastafarians is not a false religion, no religion is false, everyone have a natural right to believe what they want, and you could not discriminate that.
What if we were to say that religions such as Christianity is wrong, because Jesus is actually a copied version of Horus! (check Zeitgesit Part 1, Religion, the greatest…) [It's on Youtube]
And also, Christian creationism is not one of the first, there’s Norse, Greek, Egyptian and also Hindu, so, are you saying that theirs is wrong? Seriously?
Belief is not and can not and should not be forced, it’s a choice, just like I like apples, you like oranges, you give me apples, I still prefer oranges.
WOW! Someone who doesn’t miss the point! (Although, you do fall short a couple times, what with our name being unoriginal and all, but still, wow.)
RAmen
This site is frustrating because it makes you face the the weaknesses in your own belief. It’s frustrating to have to defend indefensible beliefs, isn’t it Joe?
There are people who we so certain of there beliefs they poisoned themselves to ride Comets or leave with cult leaders, or blow themselves up to be rewarded with virgin maidens (wonder how that works out for the female suicide bombers?) Widows throw themselves on burning pyres (Most get assistance from the righteous present at the funeral). Point is, all these people are CERTAIN of the truth of their belief, so obviously certainty is of little value in finding truth. I know people who are CERTAIN of political truths, medical ones, beliefs about their spouses. No amount of evidence to the contrary persuades them. So some poor certain soul keeps getting beaten while her husband cheats. “He loves me, he doesn’t mean it -he’d never cheat”.
When you challenge these people with facts they get really uncomfortable, even “frustrated”. It’s OK Joe. When you’re ready, you may let go of your preconceptions and look for the truth too.
As for integrity – Have you read the Koran, the Mahabharata, The Origin of the Species, The Tao te Ching, the Tibetan book of the Dead, the Complete Calvin and Hobbes? I have, with an open mind. The Koran and the Bible tied for dead last in integrity to my eyes, and I started this journey with your same biases.
Frustration is a sign you are trying to assimilate conflicting information or trying to accomplish a task with the wrong methods or tools. As long as you will not change what you are doing or believing you will remain frustrated. As long as you are fearful you will not change. It’s your choice.
RAmen
@62. Why so angry?
@51 as everyone says, you will only need one but remember it takes a long times.
The bible is a nasty book to burn it’s as nasty as it’s readers (except for the jonas brothers, man i’m shallow haha)
xox hannah
So… sentences now don’t start with capital letters and bible does?
@68 See Jee Dunham and Ahmed the Dead Terrorist: Nobody said all the virgins are women. What if these suicide bombers find out the virgins are all men?
But actually, all suicide bombers are transformed in rotten meatballs that are destined to sacred pigs’ food. I know because the pasta alfredo told me during my siesta.
i was just struck by realisation: who have said it would be HUMAN virgins. kinda makes the reward less and less attractive.