Jump to content

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Merge

Discuss the merge of the The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster into Flying Spaghetti Monster here. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would leave it seperate. Since the book just came out and the article was just started, I see it expanding, and then it would likely be broken off again.Rt66lt 03:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep sepreate--E-Bod 04:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep it separate. Fosnez 05:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Tis best be left separate matey.--146.244.137.240 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It would be unfair, and a blantent contradiction in policy to not keep them separate --metta, The Sunborn 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I withdrawed the merge. Someone who has read the book seriously needs to expand The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

FSM as religion

Started: /Archive 01#keep an open mind

Isn't it POV to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fictional? Do the God, Allah or Jesus articles start off by calling them fictional? -- Jamiem

FSM is not mentioned on Wikipedia because it is a religion with actual followers. It is listed because it is an interesting internet phenomenon. It has no followers, though there are people, followers if you will, who are in on the joke. It is notable because it is a phenomenon, not because it is a religion. Any first paragraph that claims FSM is an actual religion is kidding itself. -- Ec5618 11:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, quite a lot of religions start with multiple people being "in on the joke/scam", Scientology, Mormonism, Islam, etc. You would be extremely hard pressed to figure out if & when Discordia got real followers, as its taken a very "post-modern" approach, but Discordia has had a very significant influence on Wicca, Neo-paganism, etc. Its just not a black & whie issue, all it takes is for some people who really want to believe in a god to descide that Christianity sucks, and FSM is better in some post-modernist sense. JeffBurdges 13:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Whether or not FSM is clever post-modernism is irrelevant. This whole topic remains a pop phenomenon, it has no history (even the meagre history of Scientology) and most of this article is fluff. Shoehorn 02:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Who are we to judge if a religion is fake or not. That is actual the point of FSM, to make something that appears so outlandish, but cannot be dismissed. I for one welcome our noodley overlord. Fosnez 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing edit war over the use of the word "fictional" in this article. This is very sad. This article is of very poor quality, the section on "Beliefs" is pure fancruft. Please invest your energy in more worthy pursuits. Shoehorn 02:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Bobby Henderson actually say when he created it that it was false? If he did, then you might as well leave it out, but who says when Moses came up with the 10 commandments he wasn't saying 'Ha, look at this, they're rules right, and i'm gonna tell everyone God wrote them, just look at their faces when I say "Just kidding"'... -Hexhunter

Whatever happens to the word fake in the introduction, I felt like reminding you that the whole point of FSM was to prove the point that evidence isn't needed for something to be real (a la creationism, of course). I suppose in the same way, Scientology is equally fake, since Mr. Hubbard clearly stated that he wanted to create a religion to make money and get power - not to mention the highly satirical nature and subject matter of his novels. - Drrngrvy 03:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm an actual pastafarian, buddy

I would categorize myself as a pastafarian after looking into many religons. I like the fact that there is no

  • tithing
  • church attendence
  • telling me I'm going to hell because I like to screw around

and with FSM you can

  • blow off fridays
  • piss off the christian taliban.
  • believe in something fun

Anyway - there are real FSM believers out there

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by andman8 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 December 2005).

And write off any meals at Olive Garden as a religious contribution. MK2 00:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Aside from Discordia's whole post-modern can't-tell-if-its-belief-or-not, we also know that many many practicing Anglican Priests & Jewish rabbis do not bellieve in god at all. So religion is not just about "mindless christian belief". For many people, its about culture, or less radical forms of belief. Even in the U.S., how many christians don't believe in god, but believe that belief in god is healthy for society? andman8's "believe in something fun" isn't really very different from most of the reasons I've ever heard for true non-christians converting to christianity, although intra-christian evangelical conversions are usually something considerably less rational. JeffBurdges 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question as Jamiem. Given the spirit of the subject matter, the use of the word 'fictional' seems both hypocritical and laughable when articles discussing the Christian (and other variations of) God do not make this statement; "God is a fictional being who serves as the creator of the universe in Biblical teachings." In an attempt to keep our feet on the ground and not get carried away, it appears we've missed or forgotten the joke. Surely,
The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a supernatural Creator entity that resembles spaghetti and meatballs and serves as the central figure of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical parody religion...
...covers it well enough. - Hayter 14:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedias do not, as a rule, make jokes. FSMism was invented as satire, and therefore the use of "fictional" is accurate and illuminating. Bbpen 20:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It most certainly was not invented as satire, as far as I know it was through a vision of His Noodly Appendage himself. PHF 05:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This actually gets us into an interesting ontological debate. Is a deity any less "real" (or more "fictional") for being satirical rather than being an article of faith? If a members of a mainstream faith postulate that the existence of their deity is something that they believe in purely out of faith, and furthermore that it is a part of their faith that the existence of their deity cannot be proven, should their deity then be referred to as "fictional"? Should all deities whose existence has not been proven (that's most of them, I think) be referred to as "probably fictitious"? If not, why not? What makes faith a better indicator of "realness" than satire? Any scholars out there who can help us out? Did Saint Anselm have anything to say on this issue? KarlBunker 15:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Bbpen makes a valid point but perhaps I made the wrong one. The idea is not to spread the 'joke,' but the point of FSM. Given that this 'deity' is no less provable than any other recognised God, to single it out as 'fictional' seems hypocritical. How can we do this without applying the same treatment to other articles of this nature? Simply because we are aware of the source? We supposedly know the sources of parts of the Bible (most famously Matthew, Mark, Luke & John), why then do we not refer to their mentioned God as 'fictional?' Whilst it's certainly unlikely, it is not provable that Henderson was not in contact with the FSM and it is in fact, entirely real. I recognise the wish not be be swept up in a cultural fad, but to comment on this phenomenon and yet ignore in practice what it highlights is deserving of parody. I eagerly await comic bloggers detaling a Wikipedia article on capitalism monitored solely by communists. - Hayter 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, it's very simple. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is fictional, exactly like the other Gods. The reason why we can't write "fictional" in e.g. the christian's god page is, that there are a lot of people who would get angry at this. I know what you might think now: "Isn't an encyclopedia meant to include the truth, not what people like to read?". In theory: Yes. Practically: Not at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.184.161.128 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 23 January 2006).
Where does it say that Wikipedia tries to tell the truth? While a noble goal, that is surely impossible to achieve, for we do not know the truth of many important things, at least not for sure. I thought the goal was NPOV and Verifiability. "The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."
As the article says that the original intent is satire, the fictionality of the original FSM is presumably verifiable from the author. The existence or non-existence of a non-fictional FSM is a different matter. FWIW, articles such as Luke Skywalker also say that he is fictional, even though there is no proof whatsoever that a non-fictional Luke Skywalker didn't exist a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. No doubt this is because there is a fictional Luke Skywalker whose existence is not in dispute and who is significant enough to bear mention. Non-fictional Luke Skywalker is just not significant enough to be included, irrespective of his existence (non-existent, presumably non-fictional things may nevertheless be significant in their influence, see e.g. Luminiferous aether, UFO or God). Also note the wording, "All significant points of view are presented."
Interestingly enough, the text in non-fictional says: "Non-fiction is an account or representation of a subject which is presented as fact. This presentation may be accurate or not; that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question. However, it is generally assumed that the authors of such accounts believe them to be truthful at the time of their composition." One could claim that FSM was "presented as fact", even though the author presumably believed it to be untruthful at the time of writing. One could also claim that such satire is "presenting as fact" merely superficially, and is not to be taken literally. My personal view is the latter one, as I happen to like satire, and don't want people to go around claiming that I was presenting nonsense as facts when I write satire. 130.233.22.111 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Come to think of it, maybe saying that the FSM is fictional is not such a good idea either. Perhaps it is best not to say either way. The page about Luke Skywalker is page about a fictional character in a fictional universe, but this page is about the (phenomenon related to) proposition that FSM exists (or not) in our universe, in reality. While this proposition is not made seriously in the sense that the proponents believe such is the case, it is made seriously to point out that belief in non-existent entities is not sensible. The core of the matter is still the existence or not of an entity in reality, not an entity in a work of fiction. You could claim that the original website is a work of fiction (and I'm not sure how to classify it really), but this phenomenon is not about a website, but the FSM and the associated philosophical/theological debate. 130.233.22.111 21:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually thought your first explanation was the best I'd seen towards including something along the lines of "fictional" or "satirical." If it were me, I'd sidestep it as you propose but I find FSM to be a very good concept and so have a small smile on the side of my mouth whilst considering edits. That aside however, I have no intention of involving myself in the edit wars over this so won't change it myself - I do think a 'sidestep' is the best way forward however. "The FSM is a being first written about by..." or something similar. - Hayter 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems people missed the point. "Fictional" in this case is being used in its technical, rather than colloquial, sense, and thus means "of a work of fiction" (such as a satirical website), not "untrue"; nor is something fictional is not necessarily untrue in its entirety (historical fiction, etc.). The reason religions like Judaism and mythological figures like God aren't listed as "fictional" isn't because they're true, but because they aren't derived from works of deliberate fiction; rather, while FSMism is derived from a work of religious humor, parody, and deliberate fabrication, other religions are derived from social customs which, even if unbased in reality, tend to be true (or at the very least portrayed as such by the creators and noteworthy spokespeople, which is not the case here). Likewise, God, whether such a concept exists or not, is mythological, not fictional, in origin; the distinction accounts for categories like Category:Gods vs. Category:Fictional Gods; Wikipedia uses "fictional" to mean "of fiction", not in its looser meaning of "untrue. It thus describes both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism accurately and meaningfully, even if there are genuine believers in the truth of this religion (which, until such a thing is documented by a noteworthy source, would constitute original research to address in the article, even if an editor claims this to be the case), something highly dubious. -Silence 23:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when is FSMism is deliberately fabricated, a porody or humorous? Maybe the man is a true prophet. Unless you can cite sources for your claims, I am going to assume theres some religious discrimination going on.PHF 05:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Auther Douglas Adams wrote of dozens of religions in his Hitchhiker's Guide and Dirk Gently books. If what some of you are saying is true, then logic works something like this: Douglas wrote into being 20+ true religions. Each one is sacred and as such is protected from scrutiny and being labled as fiction. Adams died an activist athist and will be suprised to dicover this irony when he gets to one of his newly invented heavens. We are able to say that Adam's religions were fiction because we know the man and the work. We are able to do the same with this author and his work. It is a fool's folly to invest in this unless you can make big bucks from it. There is no other gain to be had of it other than how it was intended; a great big middle finger at world religions and academia politics. <yawn> I bored now. You had your 15 minutes of "fame".

Intelligent Design and Creationism

About half of those Americans who question unguided evolution are Creationists who reject the fossil record, and the other half believe in something akin to Intelligent Design (which regards the fossil record as authentic).

It's generally accepted that ID is part of a strategy to promote Creationism. But idea that God created the fossils as false clues, however, is not part of ID. Even those ID adherents who identify the Intelligent Designer as God don't say this.

On the other hand, FSM was created to make certain arguments, and one of its arguments might be that ID *is* Creationism and that all schools of thought with Creationism are one and the same. That is, FSM (or the campaign it supports) might regard all Evolution opponents as having identical (even regimented) beliefs.

If so, how can we describe their view of their opponents accurately and fairly?

We need a policy on Wikipedia:describing POV about opposing POV. Uncle Ed 15:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Creationists don't have to reject the fossil record at all, your confused with Young Earth Creationists. More importantly, ID does not itself reject the fossil record, but it does consider itself inclusive to those who do. That is really the whole point of ID, to not have Christian religious beliefs challenged in the science classroom without some rebuttal by Christians. This is why Chrisitians see it as a fairness issue. And this is why it is part of a strategy to promote Creationism. It just does not endorse any particular brand of creationism, as thats how they got in trouble last time.
The FSM is first & foremost a God, all other religious beliefs are secondary. Most FSMists take the "view" that the fossil record was created to test our faith, as this is historically the most ridiculous position adopted by Christianity. But you can not paint the whole of the movement that way, as plenty of other FSMist feal that particular strawman is excessive. They focus instead on the sole assumption that God is made of Spaghetti, which is really what FSM is all about. If your going to complain about the fossil record issue, why not just comaplain about the whole pirate thing instead? Isn't that mch more over the top?
As to describing the issue, Wikipedia generally defers somewhat to real experts whenever possible, and they pretty much universally agree that ID is designed to promote creationism. Just read the ID internal literature, look at what they say to creationists, etc. JeffBurdges 17:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a little minor NPOV note here: Young Earth Creationists don't nessicarily reject the "fossil record" they reject the dates that evolutionists attribute to the fossil record, and the methods used to find them. --Nerd42 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a big POV here. Let's note the following:
  1. The FSM is a parody specifically of the ID movement; the suggestion is that the FSM is the intelligent designer. It doesn't work if the FSM is God, which is in YECism.
  2. ID is a big tent strategy. The YECist, OECists of various flavours, day-agers, progressives, right down to Behe who says all but the details fit inside the same tent. They're mostly evangelical protestants but also include Catholics, Unificationists, and so on. They put their differences aside to fight the common enemy of Darwinism materialism secular humanism, etc.
  3. Thus the assertion the IDists don't the fossil record is pushing some of them out of the tent and actually shows the Ed doesn't know what he's talking about. Let's have a look with Google at some of the ID sites for favourite key phrases, let's say "fossil record" and "transitional fossils":

So, still think that ID creationists don't dispute the fossil record? — Dunc|☺ 21:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sold, FSM is a more well designed parody then I had realized. And this whole section of the talk page is silly. Thanks.  :) JeffBurdges 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Religion vs. Actual Monster

I was redirected from "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - was it decided that an article on the monster itself is not warranted? --jp3z 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Flying Spaghetti Monster really isn't notable outside the context of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, which generally means that a redirect rather than a separate article is indicated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
And Flying Spaghetti Monsterism really isn't noteworthy without the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so what's your point? If a fictional entity is noteworthy solely for having a religion based on it, but the character's name is much more common than the religion's name (and thus more likely to be searched for) than the religion's name itself, why have the article under the name of the religion (63,500 hits) rather than the entity (641,000 hits — more than ten times as many!)? Until FSM and FSMism are distinct enough to merit two articles, which will probably never happen (unlike God and monotheism), the dominant name should be used—Wikipedia naming policy says to use the "most common" name, not the "most inclusive" one. And even if this article is framed as being about the Monster it will still have all the same information, since the religion is based entirely on the monster and associated characteristics and actions (like the creation of the universe). In the same way, if the God and monotheism articles were both such small stubs that they didn't yet merit distinct articles, then we'd just include all the information on "monotheism" within God, because God is a much more common term and it's hard to clearly draw a line between a fictional entity and the beliefs surrounding that fictional entity. -Silence 21:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, your point seems to be that the article we have which covers both the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism should be at the former title rather than the latter. You seem to think I'm opposing that point, but I'm not; my point is that, as you say, FSM and FSMism are not yet distinct enough to merit separate articles, and until that is so, one of those two titles should be a redirect to an article at the other. I myself don't have terribly strong feelings about which is the better title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, then we more or less agree, but my comments weren't really directed especially at you, I was just taking advantage of your comment to voice my opinion on the matter (and seeking clarification on what you meant in your original statement, which you've now explained). Whether you disagree with me or not, I'm sure someone disagrees with me, or this page wouldn't have been moved back to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism after a previous discussion resulted in its being moved to Flying Spaghetti Monster. -Silence 03:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I would like to make the point that Pikachu has an article outside of the Pokemon articles, yet is irrelevant outside of those topics. Once the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is released, I think that it would only be fit to create an article on the FSM with information revealed by said Gospel. To do delete that would be unfair, and hypocritical. 24.76.102.140 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Blatantly false analogy. A better one: If there was a relatively minor pseudoreligion based entirely on Pikachu called "Pikachuism", wouldn't it be better for it to be a subsection of Pikachu rather than a distinct article? The only reason there would be to split "Pikachu" and "Pikachuism" up would be if the article itself grew exceptionally large, such that it necessitated a daughter article to syphon off some of the information. But, of course, since Pikachu is by far the more common of the two terms, even if Pikachu had been invented by practitionesr of Pikachuism, the article would be called "Pikachu". Saying "Pikachu is to Pokemon as Flying Spaghetti Monster is to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" is a huge distortion. A more accurate comparison would be, "Pokemon (the fictional species) is to Pokemon (the franchise) as Flying Spaghetti Monster is to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", since that accurately denotes how closely-linked and utterly inter-reliant the two concepts are. The only difference is that in the first example, the same word is used for both concepts ("Pokemon"), whereas in the latter example, there are two different words to be used: Flying Spaghetti Monster (the 10x more common term) and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Which means that the "most common usage" policy comes into play, and Flying Spaghetti Monsterism should redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster, not the other way around. -Silence 15:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A possible miscommunication

This component of the theory highlights the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation.

Isn't that somewhat redundent and uninformitive? I wonder what is really ment by this? Mike92591 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It means exactly what it says: it is not logically correct to assume that a correlation necessarily implies causality. -Sidar 17:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
That sentance makes sense to someone? News to me (anonymous/to lazy to log in)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)

Just because you don't understand something yet doesn't mean it's nonsense. 24.22.58.51 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of pirates decreasing?

Pirates have been making a comeback in 2005 and 2006. The majority of the pirate activity (at least the most newsworthy pirate activity) seems confined to Africa. --70.189.120.111 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the number of pirates been increasing since the advent of the original Napster and other peer-to-peer file sharing systems, whose architectures encourage widespread copyright infringement? --Damian Yerrick 03:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Them's arrrren't real priates, matey. Them's are college kids who don't want to pay for things they have access to illegally. In the strictest religious sense, read 'pirates' as 'buccaneers.' Shaggorama 22:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Software Pirate" was most likely termed by large companies and organizations to refer to the act of replicating computer files which surely is not akin to murder, pillaging, and plundering on the high seas. What remains is the notion that true piracy or at least the frequency of piracy tales has declined. --Paul Vreeland 17:53, 18 January 2005 (UTC)
  • Real pirates have been quite active and there is no evidence for FSM's claim for a reduction in pirates in the world. That is why FSM is a false religion and needs to be replaced by the one true religion, SPAM. But what's the use trying to talk to fanatic true believers ;-) Kriegman 04:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Pfft, of course the number of pirates is decreasing, in every sense of the word. Just like the number of atheists! -Silence 06:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I have no idea whether that claim about the relative number of atheists is actually true (do you have a reputable source for it?). Even if it is true, so what? It hardly means the theists are necessarily right, any more than the fact that Crazy Frog ringtones probably outsell Mozart ones by several orders of magnitude means Crazy Frog is a btter artist than Mozart. --Archstanton 15:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[[

I am a pirate!!! We are alive and well!!!]]

  • If you were a real pirate, you'd have said, "Avast! I be a real pirate, matey! We be alive and well, shiver me timbers! Arrrrr!!!!"

But I don wanna be a pirate!

you don't have to be, just convert your friends! katkat 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a graph of the decline in pirate numbers on the site http://www.venganza.org/ Feral Mutant 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Pirate Fish

I read about the pirate fish. What is it?

A pirate fish is the official emblem of FSMism. It has gone through a few design changes, but the current one is the fish resembling a skull and crossbones. --Omnieiunium 23:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

separate article

Do you support creating a separate article for His Noodly Appendage the Flying Spaghetti Monster? --Revolución (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The ideal option is to make Flying Spaghetti Monsterism a redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monster, since FSMism is less than a tenth as common on Google search (which is relevant with such an Internet-ingrained phenomenon) as FSM itself. The second-best option, which is acceptable though not nearly as good as the ideal option, is the current one: having Flying Spaghetti Monster redirect to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. But in either case, splitting the article is a terrible idea. The religion and the central creature of the religion are too deeply connected and interrelated. Plus the current article isn't yet long enough to merit a split: if enough information ever does accumulate on the FSM itself, say in a couple of years if this fad is still thriving, maybe we'll make one of the subsections of this article about the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and have a main-article-link for details. But I find that unlikely, and either way the current state of the article is better than unnecessarily splitting it, and worse than having it at the most common name, by far the most-searched for), and most clear name for the phenomenon. -Silence 17:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
regardless of google hits, the fact of the matter is that there is only so much that can be said about the FSM. If you want to devote an entire article to the FSM, chances are it would be more appropriate on the uncylopedia than the wikipedia. I strongly believe that the contents of this article suffice for the purpose of talking about 'his noodly appendage.' If an entire FSM article even were written, I predict it would fairly quickly be merged into this article.Shaggorama 11:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

and it rools!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with Silence, -ism is only implied for religions which are notable by virtue of having followers. FSM has followers, but thats not why its notable. Our title should lie closer to the source of the notoriety. Also, if both titles redirect to the same page, then google hits are a reason to choose the title.

Finally, I see nothing wrong with giving His Noodly Appendage its own article, as long as its more than just a stub. But all I see here is discussion of the obvious joke, i.e. that christians are noodly for thinking that a god guides everything. If you want to go build a giant noodle to hang off an office building in NYC, and help guide anything below, then I think we might have a case for a His Noodly Appendage article.  :) JeffBurdges 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

moved comment from article

"Sorry, but why is this content any more like a 'joke' than any other religion?"

Because it's satirical, humorous, and deliberately absurd. Most other religions are only absurd by accident; being a parody and being false are distinct concepts. -Silence 09:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


If you were to make a "church of the flying spaghetti monster," you would have to pay taxes for the land and on all the donations you would recieve, and it would not be considered a real religion. However, you could somehow get enough people to say they are "pastafarians" in the next census, then it would be a true religion. I want someone to try that! katkat 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted fancruft

I have rewritten the opening paragraph and deleted large amounts of this article as it is fancruft, and therefore not encyclopedic. Shoehorn 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

My only problem is that most of these facts are officially included in the FSM "doctrine" by Henderson. I wouldn't call it fancruft, maybe just too many useless facts in the article. - Stoph 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call any of the deleted beliefs fancruft, but you may be right that the facts are useless, although it's not hurting anyone to learn a little more about us Pastafarians! Anyway, most of the beliefs (if not all) are backed by Bobby Henderson.- Mightyhog 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Shouldn't this article remain NPOV? The wording is harsh to those who believe in the religion. -WAZAAAA 01:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

This topic does not qualify as a religion by any reasonable standard. Come back in a few years, and if you haven't been distracted by some other Internet phenomenon you can claim it as your religion. Shoehorn 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the article is best in its current form. To act like it's a serious religion with a notable amount of practitioners is misleading. - Stoph 03:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Why does it not qualify as a religion? Surely the only difference between this and, say, Christianity, is that one has more followers than the other? They both have a deity, followers, and a 'holy book', so to speak. Alexrushfear 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as one who adores the FSM, I do think it's obvious that FSMism is a parody. Yes, the FSM is "no more or less fictional than any other deity," but the difference is that we Pastafarians actually believe that our deity is fictional. If there's still concern over NPOV I suggest you be clearer about what exactly what is POV about the article. --Singkong2005 08:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it is obvious it is not a parody. This kind of statement does not constitute argument. Care to source your claim that pastafarians believe him to be fictional, or are you just making original research? It is POV to claim it is a parody religion unless you can source it. It is POV to put the FSM in fictional deities and joke religions category. PHF 05:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the quotation marks around the word "followers" from the text that originally read

"The "followers" of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are called Pastafarians. Pastafarians occasionally describe FSM as a real religion, though this somewhat negates the original intent of parodying intelligent design."

I felt this was in the interest as neutral point of view, as the following of FSM is no more or less real than the following of any other deity. Pastafarians beliefs are different only because they KNOW that their god is fake, as, they believe, are all deities. (Pygmypony 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Agreed Fosnez 21:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I dont know if it is fake or not, nor do I know if the followers think it's fake. Can you source that claim, or are you just going to cite yourself as original research? PHF 05:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ones Cult is Another's Christ.

If supporters of a religious belief consider it a religion then one must extend the common courtesy of considering it a religion even if you do not share in those beliefs. I don’t go around saying that beliefs that I don’t believe in are not actual religions. In the United States every religion is legally equal under the law regardless of the numbers of people that practice it. Legally in the US FSM is just as valid as being a Baptist.

To deny it’s status as a religion is religious discrimination.

That is why the FSM is a religion. --8bitJake 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

FSM was designed to look like a religion. The Mona Lisa was designed to look like a woman. Surely it is not inhumane to keep the Mona Lisa in a museum. FSM looks like a religion, because it was created to look like a religion. It is not a religion. -- Ec5618 18:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Your logic slays me... ДрakюлaTalk 05:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you say other religions were not created to look like religions? Do they not look like religions because of it? I think it is faulty logic PHF 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed: FSM is designed as a PARDOY of religion. Its entire purpose is to not be real, and to simply be a criticism of Intelligent Design. It would be like if someone claimed to actually worship the Invisible Pink Unicorn: we would not add that it is a real religion, because by its very design, it cannot be. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Care to source that statement? As far as I know FSM is legitimate and not a parody. Why would you declare Christianism or Islam to be religions, just because they follow God or Allah? That is biased against the pink unicorn. PHF 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If one person believes it and there are, then it is a legal religion. The origins of the faith is moot and does not matter. Why are you imposing your religious belief on this and discriminating against the FSM religion? --8bitJake 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, this topic has all the trappings of a religion: a (somewhat meagre) dogma, a central leader, and some small number of fanatic supporters. But this does not set it apart from the hundreds if not thousands of similar internet groups that appear and disappear each year. There is very little to distinguish it from a fan club or book club. The most distinguishing feature of FSM, in my mind, is the irony of defending a religion which was created to satirize the devout beliefs of other religious groups. Irony, however, is not sufficient to characterize this as a religion, and just hardly a notable topic. Shoehorn 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

the religion was started in 2005, and there are already over 3300 members registered on the forum at the official site [2] (and thats just registered forum users, not all followers), so if this religion has gained over 3300 followers in one year alone, isn't that faster than other major religions started growing? if anything, they started with a considerably smaller number of followers in their first years. the way things are going, it looks like this religion will eventually have larger followings than others.

dictionary.com defines religion as "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." isn't that EXACTLY what flying spaghetti monsterism is? isn't that EXACTLY what almost every other major religion is? i say we classify this religion as a parody or satirical religion if anybody can prove to me that their religious leader is real and fsm isn't. Jaybenad 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

However, you fail to take into account that probably 99% of the "folowers" of FSM are intending such a following to be a parody, and would be appalled to hear that someone considered their actions to be worshipping such a satirical religion.
Again, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is NOT a set of beliefs, values, and practices. It is a single example provided to prove that the theory of Intelligent Design is ridiculous. It is NOT intended to represent a new theory of ID, merely to prove how ridiculous such an idea is. Simply because one single person truly believes in his heart that FSM is real is NOT cause for it to be recorded so on Wikipedia. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
"However, you fail to take into account that probably 99% of the "folowers" of FSM are intending such a following to be a parody..." using 'probably' doesn't make it a fact
How is it not a set of beliefs? Care to cite sources to back your statements that the purpose of FSMism is merely intended for debate? The fact it is a religion is cause enough. The ancient egyptian god Ra might not have a lot of worshippers today, but theres an article about him too. PHF 05:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The ancient Egyptian god Ra had a great many number of worshippers at some point, people who truly believed that he was real. The same is not true for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was invented to illustrate a point and the fact that Bobby Henderson phrased his argumentum ad absurdam in the form "I believe in ..." rather than "Suppose I said I believed in ..." does not make it less absurd, and trying to make it less absurd throws mud in the face of the very purposes it was invented for. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This entire debate is simply ludicrous. FSM was and is intended as a parody of Intelligent Design. At this point, the only uncertainty is over whether those making the claim that Wikipedia should treat FSM as a "real" religion are doing so by adherence to principle in the face of reason, or as a disingenuous ploy opposed to its purpose. What is certain is that to portray FSM as anything other than a deliberate parody would be, intentionally or not, misinformation. Kasreyn 15:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lock for editing?

Are we going to have to lock this page? I'm getting tired of people flipping it back and forth from satire to religion. -sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006

Since the intro currently neither calls it satire nor religion, I had held hope this issue could be put to rest. Currently, the intro tells us that "the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the subject of a satirical website created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution." Nothing more, nothing less. No ridicule, no undue weight. -- Ec5618 23:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a protection might be worthwile. The article has been reverted about twenty times today, so a protection might cool the debate. Husky (talk page) 23:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How dare you insult by belief system! This is as real a religion as others. Your assignment is completely subjective and discriminatory. Just because it is nascent and you think it's a joke doesn't mean you can force your views on others. I intend to keep categorizing it back to monotheism. Beware the noodly appendage! User:Mxpule

Please I ask you to read please do not pretend FSM is serious before doing something that is a great disservice to the FSM movement. Pretty please, meatballs on top? The FSM community will thank you for treating the message of FSM the way it must be treated! Weregerbil 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed, as a follower of the FSM I do belive it is serious, on every survey that asks religion by name, I put it down, my boss knows I am a Pastafarian, all my friends do, I have converted several of them, I belive that all thou you not belive it is serious many other people do. Codemartin

Religious Discrimination Against Pastafarians in Wikipedia

The folowing text

"Pastafarians have faced religious discrimination against their religion by having their beliefs classified as a satire on the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia."

Should be included because to call people's faith a satire is discrimination against their legally protected religious beliefs. It is not a joke it is not satire. It is not up to you to call it that. Should all articles about religion have disclaimers calling them satire and fictional? --8bitJake 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Most people can tell a joke from reality. Read the comments above. Your train of thought is a nice mental exercise but works poorly on a joke this obvious. Weregerbil 00:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are people that will claim the FSM as their religion thus it is a religion regardless of the possible intentions of the prophet of the FSM religion. It is not ours to judge what is and is not a religion. --8bitJake 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

FSM has a valuable point to make regarding Intelligent Design. It is a shame what your campaign does to that message when someone comes here to read about it. You are doing a most unfortunate disservice to FSM. Weregerbil 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The website[3] lists a number of school boards on its main page. According to the text, these boards must be convinced of the virtues of FSM.
OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD:
CC:
  • DOVER SCHOOL BOARD (PENNSYLVANIA)
  • OHIO STATE SCHOOL BOARD
  • RIO RANCHO SCHOOL BOARD (NEW MEXICO)
  • GRANTSBURG SCHOOL BOARD (WISCONSIN)
  • COBB COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(GEORGIA)
  • SHELBY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(TENNESSEE)
  • CHARLES COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD(MARYLAND)
  • NAPERVILLE SCHOOL BOARD(ILLINOIS)
  • DARBY SCHOOL BOARD (MONTANA)
  • BLUFFTON-HARRISON SCHOOL BOARD (INDIANA)
  • TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY
  • KENTUCKY GOVERNOR ERNIE FLETCHER
Notably, the Dover School Board, Pennsylvania, has been crossed out, suggesting that work there is done. Notably, all these boards are facing the decision to allow ID in public schools.
Honestly, it's obvious to anyone that FSM is a means to ridicule ID. Please provide evidence of a true religion. -- Ec5618 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

There are people that believe it and are willing to claim it is their religion. Thus it is a religion. You don't need to prove faith. That is what makes it faith. --8bitJake 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the website seems to disagree with you. According to the website, FSM is concerned first and foremost with keeping ID out of (public) schools.
Secondly, no-one believes in FSM. You know that, I know that. Everyone knows it. What is the point of this little exercise? -- Ec5618 00:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"no-one believes in FSM" That is not true.

"What is the point of this little exercise?" It is not up to you or anyone to say what is not a religion. --8bitJake 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

A handful of people claiming a religious belief does not qualify it as a religion in the context of an encyclopedia. You are unlikely to get consensus agreement that FSM should be categorized as a religion, but you are welcome to try. Shoehorn 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I might as well claim that there are people fish are gods, and try to include that in the fish article. Clearly, that wouldn't fly. Please do yourself a favour, and actually read the website. See Spread the word, for example. UK comic strip The Bash Street Kids correctly identifies the true cause of global warming. Are you at all willing to contribute seriously?
Actually, strike that. It's obvious logic and common sense will not work here. Please, anyone, block this person for violation of WP:3RR. -- Ec5618 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The entire tone of the article indicates that FSM is nothing but a satire. 8bitJake has failed to make note of this, or make edits to address this position, which takes away most of the credibility of his allegations. Shoehorn 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a moot point. There are people that believe FSM as a religious belief and that makes it a religion. Come on this is not rocket science. --8bitJake 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please remove the pov boiler from the article? A few editors who refuse to listen to reason are no reason to give the impression the article content is actually disputed. -- Ec5618 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is removed I have no doubt it will come back. First someone needs to figure out how to stop that from happening. It is so sad this person is hurting FSM's otherwise excellent message with this silliness :-( Weregerbil 02:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps : {{Suggestprotect}} -- Ec5618 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who believes in FSM? I seriously cannot think that ANYONE could honestly believe in this. FSM is a PARODY. Its creation was meant to prove the ridiculousness of teaching Intelligent Design in schools. I invite you to see my IPU example in the "Ones Cult is Another's Christ" section. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 04:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think anyone believes in FSM either. Common sense suggests the person doing the defacing is just trying to make a point about religion. He has just chosen an unfortunate medium for doing it. To make his point he has to distort the truth a bit, and that is exactly the wrong thing to do in Wikipedia. And by choosing FSM as his tool he is hurting the actual beneficial message of FSM. Too much collateral damage, which makes his point seem objectionable too. Weregerbil 05:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I am an avid Pastafarian. Please do not insult me and my pirate sisters with obviously false comments about my nonexistence. You do not believe in the FSM because your heart is hard to the truth.
Pirates? How silly, go here to learn the true nature of FSM.
So, if someone believes that people can walk on water, rise from the dead, part the sea, change substances at the molecular (Atomic!) level (water -> wine) its fine... but try saying something about beer volcanos and everyone starts calling you crazy.... Can you say hypocrite? Sure.. I KNOW you can.... Fosnez 20:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the Creator of FSM's opinion?!

Just Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster"... this is what you get:

"Satirical critique of the intention of the Kansas school board to teach intelligent design in schools as an alternative theory to evolution."

That's the link to the original site, www.venganza.org. what's the first word? SATIRICAL!!!! -sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006

The critique itself (that is, the act of critiquing) was satirical in nature because unbelievers would obviously not allow teachers to teach about the FSM. They want to teach one theory (ID) because of their religion, which they perceive to be true, but w/r/t the FSM they exclude teaching the actual Truth as they do not believe in it - all of which is highly ironic and thus worthy of satire.--Wasabe3543 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The pirates at my Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster study group told me that Bobby Henderson was afraid of being persecuted for his faith. That is why he added the words satirical to the website.--146.244.137.240 19:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research?

To me, trying to call FSM an actual religion is breaking Wikipedia:No original research. Just because a tiny amount of people believe something, doesn't mean we want to include it. What are your sources for saying FSM is notable as an actual practiced religion?

Also, restated: Most people realize the true value of FSM is its satirical value. To treat it like a real religion actually goes against everything FSM stands for. - Stoph 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The canonization of Christianity goes against everything that Jesus stood for.

If you want to prove that FSM is a real religion, your more than welcome to do so on wikinews, which allows OR, or ideally in a theology journal. JeffBurdges 21:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure if I would consider following the FSM for religious purposes goes againt the FSM. Seems a contradiction in terms. Sure its commical at times, but one ofthe fastest way to convert people is through humor. I and many people I know follow the FSM as a religion. What do you mean by sources? Lists of people who worship? Signatures perhaps? Hmm... The FSM is as real as any other religion.--Codemartin 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons

I object to Wikipedia displaying cartoons of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on this page. According to the teachings of Pastafarianism any depiction of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to be considered blasphemy. I demand that the cartoons be taken off the page immediately, or I will boycot Kansas, or something. Eixo 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the creation of a poll on the matter. Or maybe three or four polls. Maprieto 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no. We're gonna do as many polls as it takes to come out on top. And until we win the polls, the picture should be taken off anyways. -Maverick 04:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm an administrator on the Flying Spaghetti monster forums, and I can confidently say that you, Eixo, are utterly wrong. Such depictions are by no means forbidden. --Alpaca

That's because you believe Pastafarianism is a monolithic structure, while it truly is a tree with countless branches. I belong to the One True Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and we are most certainly aniconists.
But hey, let’s not focus on what divides us. Just because we differ in opinion, there is no reason why there should be any hostility between us and those of you doomed to eternal damnation. Eixo 00:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there schizm guys. Still coasting on Bobby's work? We're not monolithic, but we're not idiotic either so, please, please be careful with the Word of His Noodlyness, as our faith does teach tolerance and kindness. If yours doesn't, please don't presume to be a part of the myriad Pasta-based religions. He's not that kind of deity.Auntie Dee Dee 05:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is arrogant to assume your Noodly Appendage is better than mine. Mine teaches hatred and bigotry (and the occasional torching of an embassy). Are you saying that I'm excommunicated because of that? Eixo 16:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the prophet/creator of pastafarianism was Bobby Henderson and by his words FSM is a tolerant religion. If you want a hateful religion go create your own, buddy. nicorojas 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is sad. Eixo 00:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can always start a jihad! Or alternatively you can start a protest againist the cartoon or protest with the those againist the Mohammed cartoons. Pseudoanonymous 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

His divine self controls our movements through his noodly appendage, therefore, any cartoon or other artistic measure, no matter how obsurd, was, in fact, drawn by Him. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a great sence of humour.

Which, sadly, can't be said for his disciples. Eixo 23:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
In the loving eyes of the great FSM, we are all his disciples. Every time you laugh, it is because of his noodly appendages tickling you. he brings his message in the form of a humor, because he so loves laughter and joy.--146.244.137.240 20:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and the FSM

As a christian, I can honestly say, this about the funniest damn thing I have ever seen. I'm a little astounded that there is so much genuine debate and concern about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People seem to be overanalyizing (and missing) the joke. Slimdavey 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)slimdavey

Yeah... There was even a moment where they mentioned it on CNN. They showed a cropped version of the "creation of Adam" parody (where it says "touched by his noodly appendage" and shows the FSM reaching out to the nude Adam, think the original was by Michaelangelo); only it was cropped to only show the FSM, not Adam, so the point of the parodical image was lost. The accompanying description was equally short; they said that Bobby Henderson had demanded that the Fly (sic) Spaghetti Monster should be taught in schools, too. They said it was a "joke", but never mentioned that it was intended as a critique of ID. Apparently that level of description was just too much work for CNN. The best part, though, was the cut immediately afterwards to a rather confused-looking Wolf Blitzer. Empty suit, blown mind. Kasreyn 23:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Useless introductory sentences

This article currently has some. Compare:

  • Invisible Pink Unicorn - "The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a satiric parody religion aimed at theistic beliefs, which takes the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink."
  • Flying Spaghetti Monster - "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the subject of a satirical website created by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution."

The former actually states what the article's subject is: the central figure of a satiric parody religion. The latter utterly fails to in any way address, describe, or explain what the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" actually is in the introductory paragraphs (beyond alluding to its being "the subject of a satirical website", which leaves open the question of whether it's a boat, a rare species of newt, the Prime Minister of Canada, a small asteroid, etc. that's serving as this "subject"), making the entire article useless to anyone who doesn't already know about FSM (i.e. the article's currently geared toward the editors, not the readers). This article is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster—it is not about Bobby Henderson's satirical website, which is only mentioned because of its relevance to the article's subject, not because the website itself is the subject. Ergo the first thing that must be explained is what FSM is (just as the first thing Invisible Pink Unicorn explains is what the IPU is, rather than immediately going into an explanation of its history on Usenet, etc.), not the site where it was popularized!

The last time I came to this article, it did a pretty nice job of explaining right off the bat what the topic was: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a fictional supernatural Creator entity bearing a resemblance to spaghetti and meatballs that serves as the central figure of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical parody religion invented to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented in mid-2005 by U.S. physics major Bobby Henderson and soon became the center of an Internet phenomenon, with followers often calling themselves "Pastafarians" as a play on the Rastafarians." Since then, much of the real content of the article seems to have been slowly drained out by PC-hungry pseudoPastafarians seeking to make a point about FSM being no less of a real "religion" than other religions—a point which, even if true, should be made in other places, not on Wikipedia, where there is a strict ban on original research of this sort. -Silence 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate your argument above about the meaning of "fictional", I disagree that there was much useful content in previous versions of the article. Further, the Invisible Pink Unicorn has a more significant history than the present topic, which makes it a topic that can be addressed directly, not just as an incidental character. For fictional characters, we say that Tom Sawyer is the title character from a book by Mark Twain, we don't say "Tom Sawyer is a boy from St. Petersburg, Missouri, a fictional character created by Mark Twain..." Shoehorn 01:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
But we would say "Tom Sawyer is the fictional protagonist of Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer books. A boy from St. Petersburg, Missouri with a penchant for..." or a similar construction in the opening lines if we had an article for Tom Sawyer! We don't: Tom Sawyer is just a bare-bones disambig page providing links to the various books. Because we only have articles about the books, we would never start one of those articles with information about the character rather than about the book; but since this article is, in fact, about the fictional deity Flying Spaghetti Monster (and only about the website, controversy, religion, etc. by natural extension from that being), by virtue of its name, which is not "Flying Spaghetti Monster controversy", "History of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism", "Bobby Henderson", the website's name, etc., we need to start by both explaining both the character itself and the circumstances surrounding it which make it significant, not just one or the other! Certainly the older version of the article I linked to had plenty of problems, and a lot of wording improvements could be made to it, but instead of being improved over time, it's degraded over time under a barrage of people who care more about being Politically Correct ("if someone says he believes in a religion, oh noes, we can't say it's a parody religion! quick, think up an awkward, obscure, roundabout, and unencyclopedic way to avoid addressing the issue at all, rather than just telling the POV trolls to can it!") than about actually informing our readers on this topic. To extend your "Tom Sawyer" metaphor, if this article was about Tom Sawyer, it not only wouldn't say that he's a "fictional character" or the "title character from a book by Mark Twain", much less "a boy from St. Petersburg, Missouri", but it would only say "Tom Sawyer is the subject of a series of books by Mark Twain written to entertain various people", then digress into a brief biography of Mark Twain, without ever having mentioned even one aspect of the character itself, even though the article is about the character. It's just as ridiculous in this article as it would be in a Tom Sawyer article, if not more so. -Silence 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Tom Sawyer was a weak example. For other examples, see James Bond, Molly Millions, Harry Potter.
Is this an article about the satirical religion, or the fictional deity? I don't really care either way, except that neither topic is notable on its own. Be bold! Change the redirects and make this Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. (The argument for the current name is that FS Monster gets more search hits than FS Monsterism.) Shoehorn 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
With so many doctrinal disputes going on I think we should call an ecummenical council to decide who the heretics are. SOPHIA 11:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum

Didn't there used to be a sentence in the introduction saying that, logically speaking, FSMism is a reductio ad absurdum? Why was this removed? It's neutral, correct, and provides a deeper understanding into the topic. Discuss.loodog66.240.10.170 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly because the editor (remover of 'reductio ad absurdum') thought that that phrase implied FSMism as criticizing other religions instead of the teaching of relgion as science? I don't know, though, I didn't edit it -VetteDude 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not pretend FSM is serious

How FSM works: Create a completely silly "religion". Show how the reasoning behind the silly "religion" and the reasoning behind ID are very similar. Thereby showing that the reasoning behind ID can "prove" the silly "religion", hence showing the reasoning is suspect.

It is the very *point* of FSM to be silly. Silliness is absolutely essential. If it is non-silly then the comparison of ID and obvious silliness disappear.

Please do not undermine the very purpose of FSM by pretending it is somehow serious or real. You are doing a great disservice to FSM.

If you wish to expand on the silliness by all means please do so, but not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for that. Wikipedia is about reality; a person should be able to come here and find out the reality behind FSM. One place for contributing in the true spirit of FSM is the Uncyclopedia. — Weregerbil 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"How FSM works: Create a completely silly "religion". Show how the reasoning behind the silly "religion" and the reasoning behind ID are very similar. Thereby showing that the reasoning behind ID can "prove" the silly "religion", hence showing the reasoning is suspect."
This is why the note (which used to be in the article) that FSMism is a reductio ad absurdum is useful. That statement very clearly shows that the point of FSM is to create an absurd consequence of what may otherwise seem a reasonable argument. Loodog 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)lodog

"FSM is a fictional deity"? Well, what if you believe, as I do, that all deities are fictional? *Dan T.* 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Then you are wrong. "Fictional" is being used here in its meaning of "from a work of fiction" or "an imaginative creation or pretense" not intended to be taken as a literal description of fact, such as a work of satire or a parable. It is, above all, not being used in the looser meaning of "doesn't exist" or "fabricated", a concept for which there are plenty of synonyms. This is the same concept that applies to Wikipedia's usage of the word "mythological": it's not being used in its looser, more recent sense of "untrue" or "not real". The fact that all gods are not real does not mean that all gods are fictional: compare Category:Fictional deities to Category:Deities, Category:Fictional demons to Category:Demons, and Category:Fictional werewolves to Category:Werewolves. -Silence 04:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe, with all seriousness, that the bible is a work of fiction written by men. Does the age of the bible somehow make it less fictional than another text? Since, if my belief is true, and the bible is entirely fiction, that would make the Christian concept of god fictional, because he is a creation of man's mind. By claiming that the FSM is fictional, you are essentially claiming the same thing about pastafarianism that I am about christianity. If I am wrong, then why are you not wrong? 132.205.64.149 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
FSM was conspicuously created tongue-in-cheek. I think "satirical religion" covers it nicely, though the following sentence is flagrantly unneccesary:

Although "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" was created as a parody religion, Pastafarians say it is a legitimate one; some argue that the FSM is no more or less fictional than any other deity.

  • "Satire religion" has already been stated, "parody religion" redundant
  • The legitimacy of FSM doesn't need to be asserted by some and denied by others like some controversial new theory on race. Any reasonable person will read "satire religion" and the introduction and figure it out. Loodog 03:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The FSM chooses to convey his message in the form of a satire, because he so loves humor. He is beyond logic and the wisdom of the world, therefore, it is a paradox that he is both fiction and truth. I think that we should comment on this paradox in the article.--146.244.137.240 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that it is wrong to go and say that FSM is fake, no matter what you think about it. How would you like it if someone went and said "your religion is just a bunch of jokes"? What if someone said to you "your religion is made up"? how would you feel then? Ilikefood 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no doubt in anyones mind that FSMism is a satire, even without saying, it should be understood. The point, I believe, is whether or not to give it credit as an acutal religion or a parody? The original poster makes a fine point, that perhaps we shouldnt take the belief seriously, because it undermines the parody, but Bobby Henderson, in his book, seeks to prove that this religion is just as viable as Christianity, and as such, is entitled to full fledged "Religion" status. I myself believe it to be total fact, and look forward to drinking from the beer volcano. --BarnhouseEffect 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Anybody remember the Jedi census phenomenon? Religion centers on belief. It has nothing to do with politics in most countries, excepting those which follow religious values and interpret them as law.

  • @Weregerbil: You are very close to a religious attack on Pastafarianism. Do a quick reflective exercise — have you ever had your beliefs attacked? Have you ever been in the minority when it comes to ethics or morals? Where do you get the claim that "it is the very point of FSM to be silly?" I personally thought it was very silly that two thousand years ago, a bunch of people nailed a scholar to a tree for saying that people should love one another; that hasn't altered my Catholicism or my belief in God and Jesus. You are right that Wikipedia is not for hosting silliness. Wikipedia is also not a place to host language that defames a religion by deriding it as a parody.
  • @Silence: So, what you are saying is that the author of a book determines whether or not it is "fictional?" So, the writings of H.P. Lovecraft and Stephen King are fictional, but of course the writings of fellow science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard, which have gone on to become central texts of the religion known as Scientology, are authentic? I'm slightly confused here.
  • @Loodog: Wikipedia should not be interpreted. The policy WP:AWW might clarify things here. We should not use terms which are ambiguous, which cannot be defined properly in context, or which connotate a non-neutral point of view. We are not writing prose that is to be interpreted by "reasonable" people; we are writing an encyclopedia. I suggest we be concise, clear, unambiguous, and that we try to reach the standard of "brilliant prose."

Don't revert my comments this time, please. - Corbin Be excellent 03:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Pastafarians Speak Out" (at Scientific American)

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=the_pastafarians_speak&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

What do they call their clergy?

I thought Pastor, but they already exist in Christianity. Anyone know?

According to Auntie Dee Dee on the forums, this is the structure:

Pasta--leader of a congregation Bishop--oversees several congregations within a geographic area ArchBishop--for when there are more groups that the Bishops alone can deal with Pastriarch--Head of the Pastfarian church in a country. Very large countries may have Vice Pastriarchs -VetteDude 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

POV-warning added

Looking at the comments above, it is obvious that there is a dispute on this article's state of NPOV. It cannot be said that there is no dispute, because people are writing here that they do dispute that the article is NPOV, and others are posting that they dispute that the article is NOT NPOV.

I mean, two sides holding different sides of an argument is obviously classified as a dispute.

Regardless as to if you feel this article is NPOV or not, please realize that there it IS under dispute. Guspaz 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I should note that in the same edit, I also attempted to fix the POV status. This might have been a mistake, but many posters above suggested that anyone adding the POV warning should also attempt to fix it. If you want to revert my attempt to fix it, go ahead, but that is independent from the POV warning. So then, in that case, do a partial revert, not a full revert. Guspaz 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent Criticism

Wow, check out this letter, really puts down all those Pastafarians believe, eh?:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2005/09/15/the_church_of_the_flying_spaghetti_monst

199.111.88.238 13:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If a tree falls in the forest and noone is around to hear it, does anyone give a shit? Fosnez 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does everyone ignore the guy when he says that it is not to be taken as a religion, but as a parody of one? ColdSalad 14:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I Don't think it's a matter of it be "taken as a religion", but rather, that no one can say its a "silly religion" and still ask for I.D. be taught in schools. Thats it's point. Fosnez 14:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Wow. The guy who wrote that letter is a complete and total idiot. It's actually rather amusing, in an utterly pathetic way. One wonders what university would accept such a mental midgit. Kasreyn 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Article for the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Since the book has already been released (I have my copy on hand) I'm going to create an article about the Gospels of FSM. Any assistance you are willing to offer would be greatly appreciated. Link to the article: The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster The Fading Light 5:53, 1 April 2006

another stab at the intro

Hey, I changed it around a bit to bring out the "religion" part in the first sentence, which people were hiding under all the talk about Boby. However, I did this by making religion into a link to parody religion which people may also object to. I also tried to point out that the Pastafarian position is really completely consistent with one of the major themes in modern (heh) literary thought. JeffBurdges 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The link to parody religion seems good to me. But I'm not so keen on the sentence about postmodernism:
"Pastafarians say that, while the FSM may be a parody, it is a legitimate deity, and no more or less fictional than any other deity. Such a position echoes standard postmodernist assertions that skepticism or parody of metanarratives is not the same as nihilism or disbelief."
In this case it seems that the parody is the same as disbelief - they're saying (albeit in a witty way) that all deities are fictional. Besides which, this line seems like commentary rather than encyclopedic material. I'll remove this sentence, but I'll then stand aside and see what other editors think. Cheers, Singkong2005 08:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Well such things could go down, but the point is that the academics who look at such things (very very few) often view them as part of a larger trends towards irony, skepticism of metanarratives, etc. JeffBurdges 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, why is the article now soo short? It used to have tons of good stuff! Was there a fork? Content ought to have been easily sourceable since its all on the internet. JeffBurdges 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What is up with this FSM meatballs=meat of Judeo-Christian God stuff? And the Nietzche quote? I have never heard of any of this and I frequent the FSM site...It wasn't within 3 edits of most recent (as far as my quick check found), so I was wondering if this is just something that needs to be reverted? -VetteDude 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Evangelism

FSM, along with Church of the Subgenious, seem to be the most evangalistic parody religions. It'd be good to have a section on it, I'm sure you can get lots of photos of people in pirate costumes standing on streat corners. Thoughts? JeffBurdges 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this one would make a fine featured article. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

WOW

This is without question, the best article on Wikipedia.... haha... EZZIE 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

MERLINUS FEEDBACK OK, Your for real! All the best to you. I tend to beleive in Creative Atheism myself. In it there is a God, but he doesn't beleive in himself unless he sees his shrink and looks in the mirror and says: "Gosh Darn it... I like myself." I'm also old enough not to believe in dating... unless its done with Carbon Dating! My Words of Wisdom from a self declared fool who Advises"Don't listen to Me" --merlinus 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus--merlinus 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition to Belief Section

I own the "Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster", could I add a bit to the “belief” section without someone coming in behind me and erasing the entry.

--BarnhouseEffect 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster appears to be in more need of expansion than this article section. Femto 09:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It certainly does. I'll keep it as NPOV as possible, and avoid giving it credit as a real religious text to appease the wiki-zealots. --BarnhouseEffect 14:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations not working

The citation numbers currently don't work. Shawnc 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design

http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html with an order of magnitude of 10-32

GA todo list

Yo. I'd like to see this reach GA status, mostly to tick a handful of pretentious kids that sit across from me in Theory of Knowledge class. Anyway, here's what has to happen, in my opinion:

  • The one criterion that is inflexible is image usage. Image:FSMshirt.jpg needs to have its tag fixed. Otherwise, all images are okay.
  • We need to figure out once and for all whether we are going to call the movement a religion, a satire, or both. I personally think that if there are people that believe and exhibit faith, then they are believers. Just like Sufism and Zoroastrianism, which don't have many vocal followers, it's a small religion, but it has embraced the Internet and become a large phenomenon because its central tenets follow the same non sequitur lack of logic that is inherent in many Christian beliefs. Don't get me wrong (I'm personally Catholic), but there are believers, like my website's administrator, and we shouldn't marginalize them.
  • The giant list in the "Beliefs" section should be turned into prose. Enough said.
  • We should consider whether or not to merge over and summarize sections of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. After all, Christianity and Islam have sections on their scriptures.
  • ???
  • Profit! (Actually, this step would look something like {{GA}}.)

Who's with me? - Corbin Be excellent 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not fake

Religion


Who indeed on wikipedia, has the right to call this religion "fake" or a "paradoy" as a follower of the FSM religion, I belive that this should not be considered "fake". Althogh our holy book at times seems comical, some of the fastest ways to convert people are through humor. Although I know, some followers of other religions may consider this a false religion, me personally as a devot follower, think other wise, and when given the choice always put down follower of the FSM on religion based surveys or the like. I humbly ask that this religion no longer be considered to be not real. After all who are you fellow editors to question weather or religion is "real" or not, just because, you have diffrent religious belifs. I suppose all I am saying is stay neutruel, suspend your disbelief, and simply site FSMism for what it is, a religion.

(Codemartin 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC))

Please see "Please do not pretend FSM is serious" above. You are undermining the purpose of FSM by pretending it is a real religion. Weregerbil 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not pretending anything. I belive with my entire being the FSM is real, and is a god. Thus why is this so hard to belive.

Please refrain from religious attacks. - Corbin Be excellent 07:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for a people who belive I was attacking any religion that was not the case. I simply wished to state that, I humbly belive that I belive that FSMism should not be considered "fake" or "untrue", that is all. After all one persons laugh, is another persons holy text.

The difference between FSM and belief systems that some find incredible - such as Scientology - is that FSM does not seriously purport to be a real religion. FSM is a deliberate parody. If there is anyone participating in it who thinks it is a serious religion, they are simply mistaken. Kasreyn 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a very serious religion. Many of the people I know do. I refuse to work on fridays, and my boss lets that happen. All the people I know think its a serious religion. They may not be converted but they know its real. FSMism has as much "truth" in it as any other religion. FSM may be comical at times but does this make it "untrue"?(Codemartin)
Wikipedia isn't here to put down anyone's particular "truth". If FSM makes you happy, great for you. But in creating FSM, Bobby Henderson intended it as a parody. The fact that you have chosen to take it seriously, or that some people you have known have chosen to take it seriously, is irrelevant to what FSM was intended for. If enough people took FSM seriously as a religion - and if we had a reliable, outside source on that number - then those who take FSM seriously could indeed be noted, though of course the parody's original purpose would still be notable and included. Kasreyn 04:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
What you're saying is that if the prophet or laity isn't serious, the religion must not be serious. Don't forget that Daniel and Jesus were not immediately sure of their revelations. Moses, Muhammad, Zoroaster, John Calvin, Martin Luther, and Joseph Smith, Jr. were all mocked and ostracized for their claims and beliefs. No religion is ever founded and accepted immediately. You should watch your words carefully — faith is not about being serious, it is about making that irrational step and putting your trust into ideas which do not fit into logical and empirical forms of knowledge. If you're going to treat religion as "right," or "wrong," you had better be prepared to wage that battle against every single religion-related article here. - Corbin Be excellent 22:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To Weregerbil

While I appreciate & enjoy FSM as much as anyone here, I think it's bordering on POV to have a remark in the article pleading with editors not to "hurt" the FSM movement. A better warning would be "for the sake of the encyclopedia, do not misrepresent FSM by portraying it as a serious religion". Not to be blunt, but we're here to make a fair and neutral encyclopedia, not specifically to protect FSM from its detractors. Of course, protecting the article from vandals is good work. But let's not cross the line into advocacy. It wouldn't be appropriate. Kasreyn 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is one fairly easy way to make (most) of the jokesters understand why not to do it, and thus an easy way to avoid the revert wars that flare up occasionally. And showing a particular POV on a talk page isn't any kind of a problem IMHO. Especially as the POV is ...you know, true. Like saying "Donald Duck is a fictional duck" when someone claims otherwise and tries to reflect that in the article. Weregerbil 05:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
No, no. I'm referring to the comment embedded into the article with comment markers. The one reading, "Please read 'Please do not pretend FSM is serious' in Talk before hurting the FSM movement with this! Thanks! User:Weregerbil." This article isn't supposed to be defending or protecting the FSM movement from hurt, but purveying information about it. Any appearance of concern for the health of a particular advocacy movement, within the article's main space, gives the appearance of bias to Wikipedia. A reader stumbling upon the page could easily come to the conclusion that edits - even neutral and sourced ones - from anyone who dislikes FSM are unwelcome. As it stands, there are already way too many false claims of bias from certain folks on the right - such as those who might be offended by FSM. Please, let's not give them any grist for their mill! Kasreyn 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you object to the HTML comment? I'll remove it; you could have just done it yourself too. If you come up with a wording you accept please re-insert the comment. Thanks! Weregerbil 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing! I've added a different version, how does this look? Kasreyn 06:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
"Please don not pretend FSM is a serious religion?" I am in every way abiding by that, as I do not pretend, I believe...and I used to think ignorance was not Wiki's strong point. This certainly proves me wrong. That is probably THE most offending thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Well, no, second most...my school actually banned me from even speaking about it as a serious religion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_Spaghetti_Monster/Archive_2&oldid=1136732292"