Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Flying Spaghetti Monster. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Pastafarian view concerning WP entry "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs"

There is a WP article Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. It's blue, take a look, you won't regret it ;-). I have suggested on its discussion page that it should be merged to the articles of the interested religious beliefs. But given the determination of those who disrupted the relevant work on the dinosaur article to the point where it was thought this entry would be the lesser of two evils, it might be a better idea to add pastafarian views on the subject, especially because they're asking for it ("Add information about the views of other religious groups. It's particularly important that we reflect the views of non-Christian groups, where they differ from scientific consensus."). I am not familiar with the pastafarian views on dinosaurs, but I am confident there are incredibly smart things to say about it. Be bold... --Ministry of Truth 03:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Did dinosaurs eat pasta? *Dan T.* 04:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Dinosaurs are pasta. (photo evidence) Their traces are the direct creation of His Noodly Appendage. Femto 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am grateful for the interesting views you, my fellow pastafarians, have submitted. Please make absolutely sure that my recent addition to the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs faithfully represents our relious beliefs on this crucial topic. Any inaccuracies when it comes to this extremely serious and important subject could have the most tragic consequences, as it might prevent the reader of this article to see the obvious superiority of our noodly faith.

I suggest we debate the topic on the Talk:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs page. That way, we may likewise benefit from the wisdom of those interested in dinosaurs, even if they have not yet been touched by his noodly appendice. Ramen. --Ministry of Truth 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There are only three possibilities I can guess at for your posting such a thing. I believe that no matter which of the three best describes you, there is no constructive purpose in making such posts here.

1. Assuming good faith here: if you really are a true believer in FSM, know that you are very rare. The religion was founded with the intent of a parody on so-called Intelligent Design theory. I'm not saying it's impossible anyone would ever believe it, and if it makes you happy, more power to you. But note that Wikipedia cannot give undue weight to the vanishingly few who see FSM as a real religion, any more than it can give undue weight to those who believe the Earth is flat.

2. If you're an FSMist in the sense that I am - ie., you get the joke and you think it's hilarious - please, don't bring the joke here. You'd be amazed how startlingly literal-minded some people here are. You will wind up doing more harm than good. You will wind up giving credence to ID, rather than improving awareness of the parody of it. I can understand wanting to play a prank on the literal-minded - after all, prankishness is the spirit in which FSM was created. I'm just asking you to do it somewhere else.

3. If you're an opponent of FSM who is attempting to insert misinformation into this article by pretending to be a true believer, please find a less destructive use for your time.

I sincerely and deeply hope that only numbers one or two may apply to you. All the best, Kasreyn 17:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful post. First of all, I'm aware of the heated debate that resulted in the creation of the page we're now having a closer look at. To give Matt Crypto, who had a significant role in the inclusion of religious perspective into a featured article, all the credit which is due, let me quote him to demonstrate why even the point of view of what may seem to be an irrelevant minority should be included:

"I don't really want to be the one to do it, but this article needs to discuss creationist views on dinosaurs for NPOV. Creationists often specifically treat the topic of dinosaurs (e.g. [2]), and are sufficiently numerous to comprise a non-fringe viewpoint. Above, one user argued that this was not necessary because "this page is about dinosaur science". Actually, this page is about just dinosaurs, and we have an obligation to record the major human views of them. — Matt Crypto 13:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)" Talk:Dinosaur/archive3#Creationism

The exact same argument can be made, substituting "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs" for "dinosaurs" and "Pastafarianism" for "Creationism". As the argument has prevailed and there is now such a page, I would be very grateful if you could point out how exactly you would want to argue consistently to remove the debated entry.

Whether or not including it in the first place was a good idea to begin with certainly is a valid question and applies to both discussions likewise. --Ministry of Truth 18:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The exact same argument cannot be made, because "Pastafarianism" isn't a major human view, and they are not sufficiently numerous to comprise a non-fringe viewpoint. — Matt Crypto 18:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree: Both have relevant views to express about Religious perspectives on dinosaurs. Follow your own line of argumentation over at the dinosaur thread when you were under attack by those who submitted inclusion of minority beliefs would introduce WP:NPOV#Undue weight, you made your case rather brilliantly and I won't even try to compete. --Ministry of Truth 19:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between minority viewpoints and insignificant viewpoints. Roughly speaking, the amount of weight we give a viewpoint is proportional to its popularity. If you actually have read my arguments, you'll remember that I argued that creationism was sufficiently notable to merit a mention: there's millions of people with this belief. How many people, exactly, genuinely believe in this Flying Spaghetti stuff? Zero. — Matt Crypto 05:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

First let me get a thing or two out of the way: I respect your contributions in your domain of expertise, cryptography, very much. Therefore, when I recently stumbled upon, then read the whole story ultimately leading to the creation of a Wikipedia entry titled Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, I was at a complete loss how that could have happened in the first place and what might have motivated you to participate in such a determined way in a debate seemingly completely outside of your core interests.

Creationism, even though it is a view essentially limited to the US, certainly is significant enough to deserve to be mentioned in WP, no doubt about that. But the precedent you managed to create puts countless other, also completely unrelated entries at risk of being hijacked by <insert some religious fringe belief here> to plug their view on everything their faith somehow looks at differently than the overwhelming majority. Or, while we're at it, why shouldn't they likewise be entitled to the mention that they, for a change, don't have any diverging view to offer on a particular subject ? I'm afraid, an article being on its way to the front page might be a far more determining factor than legit encyclopedic considerations for this type of additions.

There is a very convincing case to be made that mentioning creationists in a featured article about a completely unrelated subject is a particularly flagrant violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight . But as I became aware of it once the battle was over, the one thing I certainly won't do is to immediately re-annoy the good people trying to get some serious work done on dinosaurs with a re-edition of a preposterous, traumatising conflict that has for now been settled by a bad compromise.

Instead, I simply want to make sure that all participants in this debate apply the standards they hold to be true consistently. You have proven to be both a very eloquent and intelligent young man, so I assume you understand that for now, no convincing argument has been made that would preclude the pastafarian perspective from being mentioned in the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article. The criteria for inclusion are no longer those which would apply for the dinosaur article itself, but for the subject of the actual "Religious perspectives on..." one. Should I be mistaken, just say so and I will happily comply and explain in excruciating detail why exactly their views need to be included. --Ministry of Truth 05:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm being consistent: Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a religious perspective, because it's not a religion; it's a parody, and (I believe) not a hugely well-known one. Therefore it should not be mentioned in Religious perspectives on dinosaurs as a religious view. You are right; I don't normally get involved with sensitive topics — politics, religion etc — because 1) I don't enjoy the verbal violence and trolling that goes on, and 2) I'm not on a crusade. I got involved in dinosaur because it was a main page FA, and it seemed (to me) to be an enormous omission to utterly exclude any mention of religious views on dinosaurs, particularly when there's millions of people who have this view. FAs need to be complete. — Matt Crypto 17:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, he is correct; this is not a religion, it is a parody created for the sake of argument, and thus cannot be included. --InShaneee 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it was created simply for the argument, and though many follow it, there are few who can really take this seriously enough to actually believe everything that is said. Science simply proves this wrong.

Thanks again for the answers, I'll address all three aspects:

Why the Pastafarian view concerning Religious perspectives on dinosaurs needs to be included
Why religions created for the sake of argument are nonetheless religions
Why it might be a Bad Thing to go to war for an idea in a field where you lack expertise to assess relevance

If the criteria of inclusion for the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs were really about what for example the Big Four in the world market of religion (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism) have to say about the subject, that might be a different story. Most interestingly, their collective answer seems to be "nothing at all". For now an honest to <insert your favorite supreme being here, should you have one> title would probably read more like "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs of some fringe religious beliefs essentially limited to the US". I agree that the title would then sound about as preposterous as the very existence of the article already is.
Now it is a perfectly fair point to say that Pastafarianism is a little different, so starting their paragraph with something like "Pastafarianism is a religion that has essentially been created to make a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of Intelligent Design in US public schools." is probably a good idea to provide context. As for irrelevance, how about googles "Results 1 - 100 of about 700,000 for "Flying Spaghetti Monster" -wikipedia" ? Also feel free to argue how it is not a religion based on the criteria outlined in the letter to the various school boards [1].
Some excited guy, in 1517, in an obscure german village, nailed 95 theses to the door of a church to make an argument. - InShaneee, you wouldn't say that the protestant church does not qualify as a religion for that reason, would you ? - Good, I didn't think so neither.
Matt, so you started what definitely ended up being a crusade

to make a point --> WP:POINT, sorry to do that to you, but you started ;-)
because it was an article about to be featured
while admittedly not knowing much about the subject ?

Again, with all due respect, do you believe it is a good idea to use your considerable rhetoric talent to disrupt an ongoing consensus for the sake of a seemingly "logic" argument completely overlooking the relevance part ? Let me give you an imperfect, but nonetheless hopefully enlightening example in your domain of expertise:
Imagine an article about a crypto product that has been in the works for quite a while and everybody, including you, is pretty happy about it. Now some otherwise perfectly nice admin, usually writing very well about the archaeopteryx and other fossils from the same period, seeing this article is on its way to the front page, joins the discussion and starts ranting about how critically important it is to include the views of, say, Steve Gibson or John Dvorak on that matter. After all they have a large audience, talk about it and a lot of people believe what they say is true, because both are as brilliant self-promoters as they're a complete fraud. Now you know all this and would probably nail to the cross the guy who suggested some fraudsters should be included in an otherwise perfectly serious article quite eloquently and that would be a deed well done. Hopefully, the archaeopteryx guy is not significantly more skilled rhetorically than you and all the others in the discussion are or things could get ugly. While the reasons for non-inclusion are different in both cases, the example might help you to understand that a certain amount of knowledge in the field you engage a controversial debate in is probably very helpful to avoid that sheer brilliance of argumentation, never mind the merits, results in deeply disturbing blunders, such as the very existence of the "Religious perspectives on dinosaurs" article. --Ministry of Truth 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it needs to be rehashed any further. InShanee has already stated very explicitly what the reasons are for not including the material. You haven't successfully rebutted it that I can see. It is nonsense to compare Protestantism to FSM. Protestantism has millions of adherents around the world, people who sincerely believe in it. FSM has none that I'm aware of. This is an issue for WP:NPOV#Undue_weight.

By the way, Matt didn't "start" anything re: WP:POINT. You are the one editing against the consensus, not him. Cheers, Kasreyn 13:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Why the move?

I can't see any reason for moving this article to "Flying Spaghetti Monster parody". A longer title is used when there is a disambig, but it's absolutely not necessary in this case. bogdan 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Maybe this is not a bad idea afterall. I'm now off to move Florida to Florida state and George Washington to George Washington president. ;-) bogdan 19:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it back. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to add "parordy" to the end of it. Jeez, it wasn't even raised in the talk page. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To take it further, I've reverted all of Ed Poor's four-in-a-row edits. He completely gutted the article of a lot of text that had a lot of relevance to the topic at hand. I don't know why. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You might find Talk:Intelligent Design or various associated pages helpful. Ed Poor has a history of disruptive edits and edit warring in many articles related to creationism or evolution, from what I've seen. He has claimed that he feels Wikipedia is displaying bias against creationism and "Intelligent Design". Kasreyn 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugggh. :/ -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not spread the rumor that I "have a history of disruptive edits". That is tantamount to a personal attack.

Let's talk about the article instead of changing the subject to ad hominem attacks.

Which relevant text did I remove? --Uncle Ed 19:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I just covered this on your usertalk. You didn't remove text as I thought, but moved it around in a very awkward manner. Your title change was also completely uncalled for, and seems to be some way of making it immediately noticable that the FSM is a parody. Not that that's needed at all, since it says it right in the bloody article. Like bogdan said, George Washington president sounds pretty dumb. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 20:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have said nothing about you, the person, Ed, merely my impression of your editing habits here at Wikipedia. If you consult WP:NPA, you will find that it specifically requests users to focus their comments on others' contributions rather than each other. That is precisely what I did. Cordially, Kasreyn 20:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the spirit of that clause is to focus on what's specifically wrong about particular edits, not make blanket statements. — Laura Scudder ☎ 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

References in Popular Culture?

Maybe put up a section for references to the FSM in popular culture? Television, media, etc? It appears as a drawing, posted on a wall in the back of the IT room on the television show The IT Crowd --Fitly 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

He was also mentioned on a South Park episode. Don't remember the name, but it's the one where Cartman wants a Wii, so he freezes himself in the mountains and is trapped in the future.--Averross 14:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is Bobby Henderson?

Hi, just came across this article and can find no clue as to who Bobby Henderson is. It should be stated in the first paragraph, i.e. is he a scientist? biology teacher? --Downwards 07:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All I know about him is the wicked funny idea he had. I seem to recall hearing he was a student in some science or other. That's all I know. Kasreyn 21:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Unemployed computer scientist or some such. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unemployed physics BS. according to http://www.venganza.org/hireme.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.107.38.218 (talk • contribs) .

AABattery

Once ANY person can find one sentence where Bobby says it's a parody religion, then perhaps we can change it back. Until then, this religion is actually trying to get itself to be an official one, so dismissing it as parody is ignorant and subjectively centered. I, for one, am indeed a Pastafarian, whether you like it or not. My edit is much more factual than others, as the previous article only represts a non-Pastafarian's views, which, obviously, are not Wiki's standard. It is a religion, albeit not an official one. If it is ruled to stay described as a parody, then I shall have to be forced to edit all other religion pages, dissmissing it a equally false. It's one or the other, and if you can't see that, then I'm sorry to say, but you're very, very ignorant. -AAbattery 19:31 EST, 7/1/06

"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. AAbattery 19:45, 1 July 2006

See the FSM FAQ (http://www.venganza.org/faq.htm), specifically question four. Bobby Henderson states he has a problem with accepting supernatural explanations.

Right, now we can reset the timer, and wait for the next person to exclaim their love for the FSM by undermining everything it stands for. -- Ec5618 23:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I have already raised this issue after talking with User:Ministryoftruth, who is espousing the same nonsense. Per Undue weight, the opinions of "real" FSM believers are in a decided minority compared to those who recognize its satirical intent. If we had any reliably sourced information that such a thing as a "true believer" in FSM actually existed, I'd say it would be worth noting with a single, short sentence. Otherwise, the article stays as it is. Kasreyn 22:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a parody, whether by truth or by majority acceptance. If Bobby Henderson were to seriously believe FSM is a real religion, then he would be contradicting himself when he says that he has problems with supernatural explanations for things. Please, read further into things than the first layer. Vancar 13:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources Describing FSM as a Parody or Satire

~~Just for you, AABattery~~.

Some choice bits:

"Henderson said he's merely using the time-honored tradition of satire to illustrate his personal views. ... 'Originally it was just a letter, and it was sort of a joke,' Henderson said in a telephone interview Monday."

The Register-Guard, Eugene, OR

"'It was actually a very clever satire, really getting at the heart of the argument why creationism probably should not be taught as a science,' Rod Henderson said of his son's letter."

and

"'I am not too worried about the angry religious people who e-mail me,' Henderson said. 'Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of religious people are not nuts, and most of them understand that the FSM project is not an attack on religion, only on dogma.'"

The Oregon News-Review

"...Bobby Henderson’s satirical Web page (www.venganza.org)..."

and

"'I think it’s weird that it’s still going on,' Henderson told me in a phone interview."

and

"Henderson thought, if Kansas was open to teaching nonscientific theories, then why not his: that the world was created by the 'noodly appendage' of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. So to mock the decision, he asked the Kansas board to also teach his theory." (emphasis mine)

The Kansas City Star

Other editors, feel free to add more sources to this section as you find them. Kasreyn 23:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Pirates

I have deleted the entire section on pirates, as it only attracts more and more cruft as time goes on. I believe this sentence from the Beliefs section tells us all we need to know about how pirates are linked to the FSM:

"Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in numbers of pirates since the 19th century."

Shoehorn 19:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it back in. I don't think such a large section should be removed without a consensus of editors.--8bitJake 19:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree it's a bit long, considering the actual beliefs of Pastafarianism are largely irrelevant. A brief mention of the Pastafarianism interest in pirates is justified, but little more. -- Ec5618 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to wait for consensus on this issue. My position is that this entire section is cruft which places undue emphasis on the subject simply for the sake of amusement. Shoehorn 10:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it can certainly stand to be trimmed, but I'd say it's at least noteworthy that Henderson not only attacks Intelligent Design's conceptual basis, but he also attacks some of the specific kinds of pseudoscience they use (such as misleading graphs and post hoc arguments). Ie., FSM not only mirrors and parodies the belief system of ID, but also its methods. Kasreyn 21:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we get that idea in the first paragraph of the article. Only a very broad presentation of how FSM accomplishes this is necessary. Shoehorn 05:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed a little. I disagree. The article would be incomplete without details on specific absurdities and FSM's ways of logic attacks. Femto 12:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Still 99% cruft. The second paragraph repeats the second bullet under "beliefs". The graph is cruft. The third paragraph has an informal tone and adresses a crufty subject, the aforementioned graph. The last paragraph is the cruftiest of all. And, since the first paragraph is just an introduction to the other three crufty paragraphs, it is superfluous, as the connection between pirates and the FSM is already presented in the section on beliefs. Shoehorn 22:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, removed this redundancy. — Of course it's cruft. Not 99%, the whole freaking religion is 100% cruft. All religions are cruft, that's the whole point of FSM, isn't it? The graph illustrates a central belief of this religion. You can't describe the cruft without presenting details on the cruft, and I think the article is well within Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards as it is now. Femto 12:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Femto. We're talking about a Flying Spaghetti Monster. 67.102.65.179 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people believe very seriosuly about this, and i think joking about it is disgracefull and outragious. This is a serious matter that should be seriously in a serious manner. And I'm serious. Back to the point, i think that pirates are a bigger part of the FSM belief than many people give it credit for. Moneal04 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

Re this edit: It does not necessarily follow from the correlation that if piracy goes up there must be 100% probability for global warming to go down. The recent increase in piracy is obviously a statistical fluke which slightly reduces the significance of the earlier data, but by no means invalidates the theory. Have faith and ignore the anomalous data, it's done all the time. Femto 11:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, I know that, and Henderson knows that! Henderson is attempting to mock the ID proponents' use of the correlation-causation fallacy by introducing a correlation-causation fallacy into FSM. I don't care anything about recent flukes, either upwards or downwards, because when compared against the 350-odd years of history we're talking about, they're meaningless. The reason I reverted was because the actual claim removed - that there is an inverse correlation between quantity of pirates and global temperature - IS true. There is such a correlation; it's just that, contrary to FSM's joking "dogma", it is a meaningless correlation, illustrating similar meaningless correlations in ID "science".

Perhaps you feel it could be said in a better way. But let's not confuse the topic here. If we're going to explain how FSM's "pirate correlation" gag works, so that readers can understand exactly what, in ID, is being lampooned, we need to be clear about what a correlation is. Cheers, Kasreyn 11:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems we're talking past each other. I was more referring to Geni's edit than to yours and tried to expand on why it only made sense to revert. Femto 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ohh... OK, my mistake! ^_^; Kasreyn 21:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[2] - Nobody's denying that piracy currently goes up again, but that's completely beside the point. It reduces the confidence in the hypothesis, but only a little. On the scale of the whole data set, it is still statistically perfectly valid to claim that if piracy drops, global warming rises. There indeed is a statistically significant correlation, regardless of recent datapoints that may not fit the theory. Femto 17:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is Henderson's source for that data? I mean 35000 pirates is an awful lot for 1820. Letters of marque were dieing out and the golden age of piracy was long gone. 35000 men is something like 180 Sixth-rate frigates which would have been very large for a pirate vessel. 35000 men is rather more than the british had at the Battle of Trafalgar. It's enough to equip ~40 first rate ships of the line. I'm not sure even Britian had 40 first rates.Geni 21:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Henderson probably fabricated the numbers. FSM is a parody, after all, and the pirates graph is supposed to illustrate misleading fallacies... given that we know Henderson is lying/joking about so many things, it's probably safe to assume he didn't bother to do any real research on historical data of numbers of pirates over time. Still, numbers of pirates have at least gone down, which is enough to illustrate the fallacy. Kasreyn 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence that they have gone down within that graph is? Even by 1820 Britian had pretty good control of the seas. The statement is "Yet, there is indeed a statistically significant inverse correlation between global warming and number of pirates". It either needs evidences or it needs to be removed. remeber The first half of 2003 was the worst 6-month period on record. Lloyd's has records dateing back to 1838.Geni 23:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the real number of 'friendly pirates of true faith' doesn't necessarily have to match our historically 'biased' data about buccaneering. How the statistics get mangled with half-truths is a central point though, instead of removing the sentence, how about relativizing it with a disclaimer "in the provided data set" or something like that? Femto 14:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

fine as long as it stops claiming there is an actual proven correlation between the real world numbers.Geni 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a proven correlation, it is his belief. Are you claiming that religions need to be based on scientifically proven facts?--24.117.140.103 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See the template at the top of this page. --InShaneee 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Appearence of FSM

Hey guys, i've added a line (the fsm appears in a new york dolls video), but this is my first try in eglish, so hopfully sombody can correct the grammar (i dont think ist that correct :) ). im frank_n_stein in the german wikipedia, so feel free to contact me!

greeting --217.15.4.248 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

myspace

why delete the myspace stuff? I'm replacing. Mccready 13:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A virus? Just another Flash worm? Was the vulnerability internal to myspace, or were website visitors infected? Why "in order to promote", if the origins are unknown? It's unsourced, rather incoherent information with no way to check notability. Femto 14:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No dispute it happened? I've rewritten and sourced. Hope that's OK. Mccready 14:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe my spaceworm has nothing to do with the real FSM. --Weaponofmd 05:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Move?

Should this article be moved to "Pastafarianism"? And then have a differnet article on the Flying Spaghetti monster?

Under what logic? They seem closely related enough that they should be in the same topic. JoshuaZ 08:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is more appropriate to have the article here. Most people are more likely to have heard about the FSM than about the joking name for the religion focused on worshipping said FSM. Additionally, the most important aspect of the article is the farcical notion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, rather than the pasta joke.

Further, you seem to be suggesting the splitting of the article in two: FSM and Pastafarianism. Refer to WP:NOTABILITY; I would feel that this subject isn't notable enough to merit two articles. Better to include all the information in one. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Important new sighting?

I added a link to what might be an important new FSM sighting, but it was promptly removed, I know not why. I notice that the article currently contains a link to a sighting in Hamburg, for instance. I'm not saying I necessarily believe that this is an FSM manifestation, but you would have to admit that the resemblance is quite uncanny. Please discuss before removing the link again. Laurence Boyce 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't call other editors vandals. Secondly, the Hamburg link states that there was a 'purported video of FSM', whereas your link stated that there was a 'possible manifestation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster', suggesting that the FSM may manifest itself. Thirdly, the link you provided doesn't suggest that the image is of the FSM, which makes the link description, and the inclusion of the link into this article original research, which is prohibitied. If an outside source suggests the image is of the FSM, it is no longer original research, though the link will need to point to that source. Removing the link. -- Ec5618 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I don't think I called anyone a vandal. You do sound like a bit of a dick though. Laurence Boyce 14:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary read, in full "rvv - see talk". Rvv is Wikipedia shorthand for Revert vandalism. Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that you knew what you were saying. I realise that you may have picked it up somewhere without realising the meaning behind it.

Nevertheless, calling me a dick falls under Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, which is also the basis for my suggestion that you refrain from calling others vandals. It is a blockable offense. Please try to remain civil. -- Ec5618 14:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. No, I thought "rvv" meant revert the reversion, a bit like C++ or something. I'm sorry. Laurence Boyce 09:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. He does sound like a dick. This same image is on Venganza.org. The Pastafarians seem to agree with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedbraden (talk • contribs)

Please don't call other editors names. It serves no purpose. -- Ec5618 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the best sighting of the FSM ever, we mock your bits of toast with Mary on! HA HA HA!Hypnosadist 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

8 commandments?

Do we have a WP:RS source for them? Even if we do have one, I'm not sure they should be included since they are a bit of a tacked on after thought that wasn't part of the original joke. JoshuaZ 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason this article was split into this article and an article on the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that this article was a little long. If we add content from the other article back into this one, that really defeats the purpose.

And, actually, I can't find a credible source for the Eight .. They are quoted on a number of fora, but I can't seem to be able to find a Venganza-related source. -- Ec5618 01:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is in the Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedbraden (talk • contribs)

Good. All that leaves is the other points raised above. Is this content relevant in this article, when the gospel is linked to at the top of the section? -- Ec5618 01:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the section says "The Eight 'I'd Rather You Didn'ts'", so why would you not include them? Reed Braden 02:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because they take up a lot of space in the article, while being a minor part of FSM. (The list takes up about a third of the space of the entire body of the article.) Indeed, this list was created after the original letter to the Kansas School Board, which hints at its importance. I'm not saying it is irrelevant, per se, but it is much more relevant in the context of the gospel article. -- Ec5618 02:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it not important? To those who actually believe in the FSM, this is some of the most relevant and meaningful text in all of Pastafarianism. I insist that it be left in.Reed Braden 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a real religion, posting it would be copyright infringement, period. Deal with it. --InShaneee 02:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam is not a real religion. Posting any verse of the Koran..... see? It's just as rediculous. You cannot belittle one religion just because you don't believe it's real. Not a valid point! Reed Braden 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be beneficial for you to read the third "I'd Really Rather You Didn't." Reed Braden 02:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument isn't that since FSM is not a religion, posting the 'commandments' would be copyright infringement. The argument is that posting copyrighted material, such as pagelong quotes from books, constitutes copyright infringment. Also, this isn't about what we feel about FSM. It is about what FSM was intended to be. -- Ec5618 02:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a real religion to those who practice it. Plus, no one is claiming it as their own text. It is clearly just an informative quote from a "religious" book. If I claimed it to be my own original work, it WOULD be plagiarism... however, I have made no such claim. Reed Braden 02:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just posted the name of the Author and the name of the book. If it's good enough for an MLA-format thesis paper, it's good enough for Wikipedia. Leave it alone. Reed Braden 02:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Duplicating content is unnacceptable. It's on the Gospel page, people can follow the link there. --InShaneee 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well then, the content had to be duplicated from the book in the first place to make it onto the Gospel page. It's absolutely INSANE to title a section "The Eight Commandments" and not put those commandments there! It makes more since to have the content all grouped there. It's more convenient. Why do you care so much about leaving it out? Does it offend you in some way? Reed Braden 21:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have merged the two sections about the Gospel. -- Ec5618 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I found written consent for not-for-profit duplication of the work. http://www.venganza.org/faq.htm Scroll down to number 11: "In general, it is OK with me if you use the FSM images/content as long as they are in no way for profit. I.e., printing out FSM stickers for your own use would be OK, but selling them would not be. Giving them away would be fine in most cases."

That's good. That means the article on the Gospel is not currently in violation of copyright, and that this article wasn't in the past. Still, a reference to this consent seems more relevant in the article on the Gospel. Perhaps you should bring it up there. -- Ec5618 22:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it really a parody?

There is a label on the page, "From time to time, editors argue that FSM is a real religion. This has been suggested several times, and consensus has always been to call FSM a parody. If you disagree, please read the archives and use this Talk page, before editing the article." Who is to say what is a religion and what isn't? Sure, it started as a parody, but now there are real followers who choose to belive in a loving pasta monster rather than a scornful God. Who are you to tell them they are wrong? Also, if the fact it was started as a joke means it's not "real," what about the argument that Christianity and Judaism was started as a fairy tale, not to be taken seriously. Some people believe that, so should we treat other mainstream religions as theoretical? The true question is, what makes a religion true? Pastafarianism has a large number of people who seriously believe in this alternate God, does that not make it a real religion? Reed Braden 02:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This point has been discussed numerous times. You can find these discussions throughout the archives. Please read them before rehashing old points. "consensus has always been to call FSM a parody". -- Ec5618 02:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Right... but have these people actually met whomever God is? Have they died, shook hands (or noodles) with God, and returned to the mortal plane? I think it deserves re-discussion rather than a ham-handed sorting into the 'fallacy bin'. Reed Braden 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What? Which people? What mortal plane? What fallacy bin? -- Ec5618 02:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There are people, like it or not, who choose to believe this. It is a much nicer approach to religion to them. The mortal plane generally means Earth and its surroundings (i.e. not heaven, not hell). I was making a point that the people arguing this have never met the real God, so they can't be allowed to make that distinction for other people. The 'fallacy bin' was proverbial to insinuate that someone was sorting religions into True and False, and the False ones went into a bin marked Fallacy. Look it up in the dictionary if it confuses you. It was a metaphor to make a point. Reed Braden 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make this a religion, end of story. --InShaneee 02:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pastafarianism is a parody of religion. It was created to show that it makes no sense to suggest that children should be thought all viewspoints on any issue, as creating a 'valid' viewpoint is not difficult to do. Pastafarianism was created to satirise intelligent design, and the abandonment of logic (as per the inverse relationship between temperature and number of pirates; a 'logical' relationship). Please do not reduce FSM, by claiming that it is a true god. -- Ec5618 02:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that I was a true Pastafarian. I KNOW a few Pastafarians. To them, their religion is just as real as yours. The definition of a religion is mainly anything that has followers that consider it a religion. Pastafarianism is just as real as any other religion. And you can't tell me that it was created to e a parody, so it must always remain a parody. The truth is, when it went overboard and people began to truly worship FSM, it BECAME a true religion. It became the essence of what it originally mocked, yet that doesn't stop it from being true.

Ask those people how they feel about the fact that their messiah openly admits to making the FSM up. How they feel about the fact that, faith of not, there was no "Captain Mosey, a pirate and the FSM equivalent of Moses". And again, please read the archives. -- Ec5618 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The argument here is not whether they are right or wrong, the fact is that some regard this as religion and follow it as such. Therefore, it is - by definition - a real religion. Reed Braden 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Read the archives. -- Ec5618 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The archives are FAR from conclusive and there are more than just one or two who object to the persistent use of the word "parody".MikeURL 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the definition of "religion" - "A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.", it is. Some people believe this, so it is a real religion to them... whether the founder says it is or it isn't. Reed Braden 02:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, I could ask you to prove these people believe in the FSM. How do these followers feel about their holy scripture being filled with provable lies? Now, will you please read the archives? This discussion serves no purpose. Unless you have new information, there is no point in rehashing these points. Again. And again. -- Ec5618 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You care too much about this. I'm merely sticking up for the rights of my friends who believe in this, and all you are doing is berading them.Reed Braden 21:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean like, say, the Christian Bible, and every single other holy book? Yeah. That it is false is irrelevant, but I have trouble believing people are actually this guillible. 129.59.52.135 02:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FSM can be any of the following in any combination in the minds of followers; a parody of religion and religious "thinking", a real religion (a catma of Discordianism), a real religion (a dogma), a legal protest against the separation against church and state, a legal protest against the whole concept of ID and more.Hope that helps.Hypnosadist 02:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I am a true believer. I follow this religion. It is a true religion to those who follow it, so please remove that offencive "Parody" sentence from the first page.

This can be both a parody and someone's religion. They are not necessarily exclusive.

Professional wrestling (in the USA) has been a parody for decades now. Yet some believe it very religiously. No contradiction. None here either.

Oh, and FSM could also be a way of picking lottery numbers for that matter, if one chose to believe that's what it was. But what it really is, of course, is something different.

Hey dudes, just to say, FSM WAS created for a simple argument, but has now gathered a following and is taken seriosuly by many. So watch what is said as many may find it offensive. This is now a true religion, even though the origin is debateable, just like the origin of most religions.Moneal04 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Baccyak4H 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the official page http://www.venganza.org/about/ , FSM is a real religion and not a joke. helohe (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In the same way that Pope Alexander VI showed that he didn't care for God, Bobby has shown that the FSM is a parodical religion, however, just because the leader of the religion doesn't believe does not necessarily mean that the religion is fake (see example of Pope Alexander VI). Another example is here: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/3684/in-denmark-a-man-of-god-but-without-that-god-part... where a Danish priest becomes an atheist but in the end continues to teach the gospel to willing followers. This man teaches about God, but does not believe in him; much like Bobby Henderson. Does that mean that his sect of Lutheranism is void? I think not.

You make a fine point. I don't understand why the entry can't read that the religion was started by Bobby as a reaction to the Kansas decision on evolution and leave it at that. I think the insistence on calling it a "parody religion" is unnecessarily biased language. "Religion" has a very low bar in terms of what is needed to make it so. A person merely needs to believe in something greater than themselves. Nothing on Bobby's website (http://www.venganza.org/) indicates this is a "parody religion". It DOES indicate that the religion was created in reaction to events. Bobby writes, "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." Personally I believe in the FSM MORE than I do the God of the Bible. I object to the persistent use of the term "parody religion".MikeURL 19:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Look up WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V. One or two people who honestly and sincerely believe in the FSM are not notable, and are pretty hard to verify as well. Whereas the intent of Henderson to create a satire/parody is well documented (see my section above). WP is for notable, verifiable, documented information, not for reporting every tiny fraction of a percent's minority opinion. Kasreyn 08:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Over the last year www.venganza.org has had as many as nearly 10 million pageviews in a single day according to alexa.com. Do you know how many of the people visiting www.venganza.org take it seriously? To assert that it is a parody religion is to assume you know the heart and mind of 10s of thousands and maybe 100s of thousands of people. Until I see evidence that proves that no one takes the religion seriously then I will maintain efforts to remove the use of the unnecessarily biased word, "parody". Without the word "parody" the page is wholly factual and any reader can decide for themselves what type of religion it is. Adding personal judgment of an entry is hardly what WP is for.MikeURL 03:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A) I don't see why the number of page views is relevant for how many people are taking it seriously or not. B) Even if a few people do take it seriously the vast majority do not and so WP:NPOV's undue weight clause would apply. Third, the bottom line is that we have reliable sources that call it a parody and have none that suggest otherwise and therefore it should be labeled as such per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JoshuaZ 03:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Page views are relevant in that it gives an indication of how many people have been shown the way to one of His Noodly Appendages. If you believe the vast majority do not take the religion seriously that is fine and you may make that case in the page. Opinions are great and everyone ought to have them. Let the facts of the religion speak for themselves without adding unnecessarily biased language that discards the express discomfort of several editors on a topic as sensitive as their religion.MikeURL 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You know who else gets a lot of pageviews? Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a religion. It is, however, a source of verifiable information. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Mike, I strongly suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS. The bottom line is that as long as we have reliable sources which describe it as a parody it should be labeled as such. JoshuaZ 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a section

I forgot to put an edit summary, but I moved one statement from history about the New York Dolls to a new Section "FSM in Pop Culture" and added a few instances of Pop Culture FSM. All the info was pulled off the official site which has already been referenced several times, so it would have been overkill to reference them all. Also, the Playboy article may need a reference, but I have no way of getting my hands on a Jan. '06 Playboy for reference info. Reed Braden 20:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice. It's an obvious section this article was lacking. You're right about needing references, thuogh. Still, nice. -- Ec5618 21:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Prove/Disprove

In this edit, I draw a distinction between "proving the absurdity" of ID, and "disproving" ID. I'd like to explain in slightly greater detail than is possible in an edit summary.

ID cannot be disproven. This is one of the major reasons why ID is not a scientific theory; falsifiability is a requirement for a theory to be scientific, and ID cannot be falsified because it cannot be tested. From what I've read of his writings, Henderson seems to understand this quite well.

Therefore it's silly to say he was attempting to "disprove" ID; Henderson seems to be perfectly aware that ID cannot be disproven. Rather, he is attempting to mock it by creating a reductio ad absurdum argument: he has created an equally-unfalsifiable, equally-unscientific theory about a farcical designer, to illustrate the unscientific nature of ID. I hope this explains things a bit better. Kasreyn 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you completely on this point Kasreyn.Hypnosadist 02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Make that three, well explained. Femto 12:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

reductio ad absurdum argument

This is not a "reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of Intelligent Design". A parody or farcical representation of a deity does nothing to undermine the foundations of belief for those who are followers. It only serves to highlight the contempt which the "Pastafarians" have for all forms of religion.172.143.182.113 12:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 172 but it is a "reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of Intelligent Design", its a simple substitution, an arguement that is reasonable (to you) if you say an unseen and unprovable force called God does it, but a "farcical representation of a deity" such as FSM which is equally as unseen and unprovable (either way) is not reasonable. That is "thinking" i do have contempt for, you are quite right!Hypnosadist 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. My favorite saying about atheism is instructive: On being asked by a theist why he did not believe in god (specifically the Christian god), Stephen Roberts replied:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Somehow, I doubt either our anonymous colleague or the Kansas State Board of Education have an answer to Roberts' challenge. Kasreyn 01:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice reframe there Kas and Roberts'.Hypnosadist 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Kasreyn 00:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

OK so lets looks at the concept of a reductio ad absurdum argument. Wikipedia's own article on it gives us the following structures:

   A — All beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
   B — If that's the case, then C is correct in his belief, even though C believes something that is considered to be wrong by most people, such as that the Earth is flat.
   A — True.
   B — Then some beliefs can be denied.

   A — You should respect C's belief, for all beliefs are of equal validity and cannot be denied.
   B —  1. I deny that belief of yours and believe it to be invalid.
      2. According to your statement, this belief of mine (1) is valid, like all other beliefs.
      3. However, your statement also contradicts and invalidates mine, being the exact opposite of it.
      4. The conclusions of 2 and 3 are incompatible and contradictory, so your statement is logically absurd.

   Mother — Why did you start smoking?
   Son — All my friends were doing it.
   Mother — You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?

   A — I don't think the police should arrest teenagers for soft drug possession.
   B — So, you are basically arguing the police should not enforce the law and we should live in a society of violent chaos.

So what we have is:

1 - I believe A. 2 - If you believe A, you must believe B 3 - B is absurd 4 - Therefore A is absurd

So in the case of FSM we have:

Theist: I believe God created the universe Pastafarian: But God is an unfalsifiable, absurd concept. My fictional deity is eqully plasible as your "respectable" one, look how silly creationism looks now!

This is an argument of the form:

1 - You believe A 2 - B is kinda like A 3 - B is absurd 4 - Therefore A is absurd.

This is NOT a reductio ad absurdum argument.

I am more than willing to accept that belief in God is an entirely subjective thing. It is dependent upon ones own experience of such things.

On the statement: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." I would have to disagree. I am both a scientist and a Christian. Most people, of all belief sets, suffer from catatrosphic scepticism when anything is outwith their particular comfort zone. This is especialy true of scientists. It is a rare thing indeed that someone will, upon investigation of a subject, end up believing exactly the opposite of what he did at the begining. I contend that the reason I follow Christ, and reject other world religions is completely different to the atheist. I follow Jesus because of REVELATION, and likewise I reject the others because I have witnessed the truth firsthand. The atheist rejects religion because it steps outside of the his confort zone (the immediately provable). The conecpt followed by the atheist in terms of logic is also flawed. It assumes that one can argue from the facts toward the truth. This is not true in the case of God. He is the author of truth, one cannot argue to Him but one can argue from him. In weighing this argument please bear in mind that I may have an additional piece of information compared to yourselves. I know what the interior experience of day to day life as a Christian is like. I know what it is to interact with God on a personal level. It is the inside of the relationship that contains the proof you seek. Unfortunatly you don't get it unless you take that first step entirely in faith.

PS I'm not from Kansas. 172.200.181.36 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Simple answer to this, Prove to me that GOD is real and or FSM is un-real. You Can't as they are equally unprovable, therefore God and FSM are equal concepts as you can't differenciate between them.

So given that we have: 1 - You believe God created the universe in an unscientific way 2 - FSM's creation myth is inseperable from using logic/science GOD's (Fundie Christianity) creation myth 3 - FSM's creation myth is absurd 4 - Therefore GOD's creation myth is absurd. Simple!Hypnosadist 13:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

So am I to take it that the official position of the Wikipedia is that Christianity (and indeed any other religion) is absurd? All I was asking was for the Reductio Ad Absurdum claim to be removed. The line of defense you seem to have taken is one of attempting to prove that religion is indeed absurd, rather than the simpler one of attempting to justify describing it as an argument of the Reductio Ad Absurdum structure. I still assert that one cannot insert whatever premise one pleases into anothers argument and then claim it is an effective counter-argument. God and the FSM are easily distinguishable by the process of logic by comparing their "publicity material". Whether they exist is another matter, but they are most definately two different things for the simple reason that they are described in different ways. Saying God and the FSM are the same is like saying Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are the same. The world of "unproven entities" is not a homogenous mass where one thing cannot be told from another. All I am interested in here is the claim about what kind of argument the FSM represents. 172.142.76.109 15:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

First i'd like to say that i am not "the official position of the Wikipedia", what wikipedia is is defined by its policies such as WP:NPA or WP:VER. Second i misunderstood your logical attack on FSM as a reductio ad absurdum argument, and hence went after the wrong absurdity. OK second times the charm,

   Mother — Why did you start smoking?
   Son — All my friends were doing it.
   Mother — You're saying that if all your friends jumped off a cliff, you would do that too?

OK we agree this a reductio ad absurdum argument with the jumping of the cliff as the absurdism? So the FSM arguement is;

Hypnosadist - Why do you believe God created the universe (in a way that contradicts all scientific knowledge)?

YOU - Because this book (The Bible) told me.

Hypnosadist - You're saying that if i give you a book (The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) which says some spaggetti with meat balls for eyes created the universe (in a way that contradicts all scientific knowledge), you would believe that?

If it was written 1400 years ago (before modern science) definatley yes I would.

Ok hope that helps, FSM is not an argument against the existance of God, just illogical creationism.Hypnosadist 17:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the creation account of the FSM could be taught in classrooms alongside the accounts of Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, and then they could all be weighed appropriately against the evidence? Kids dont get nearly enought training in logical analysis these days anyway, be good for em! Its the scientific communities attempts to actively supress a field of study that irks me. 172.207.20.238 17:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) BTW - Why was this reply deleted by InShaneee?? I'm trying to have a civilised discussion here.

InShaneee please do not remove posts if they do not contain personal attacks!Hypnosadist 21:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are to be used for discussion of the article in question only. --InShaneee 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was what we are doing, one or two off topic posts happen now and again and can be edited out of Archives but in an ongoing discusion of an reductio ad absurdum argument i thought it was rude. Hypnosadist 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm... In my entire life, I've never seen any evidence that disproves or proves God, nor any that proves or disporves evolution, therefore one can conclude that evolution would also fall under Pastafarianism. Funny when you think about it that way. ILovePlankton 12:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

NO your wrong on all counts. Actually there is lots of evidence of evolution ie genetics and so on, it will not be proved until we have 100.000 years of scientific observation of it happening or we develop time travel whichever happens soonest! A second point is that scientists say evolution is a theory and creationist say their view is a fact (lol).Third point is what does this have to do with the reductio ad absurdum argument?Hypnosadist 12:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue to discuss evolution, but I'll take a moment to try and clear up some misconceptions; if you wish to discuss this further, it would probably be better-suited to user-talk pages.

First, true "proof", in the sense of established certainty, does not exist in any scientific or empirical statement; even basic things like "shoes exist" or "the Earth revolves around the Sun" can never be scientifically 'proven', merely justified to an enormous degree by the evidence.[3] It is in this area (of unproven, but extremely well-substantiated by the evidence, theories) that evolution (and, for that matter, gravity) falls. This is because there is, in fact, an enormous and overwhelming amount of evidence in support of evolution, and zero evidence that contradicts it.[4] This doesn't make evolution certain (because next to nothing is certain), but it makes it more plausibly reliable than most other scientific theories.

Unlike evolution, God does not have any reliable evidence in support of its existence; nothing has ever been observed that would require God in order to have occurred, whereas countless billions of events are observed every day which would be essentially impossible if not for evolution (including microorganisms developing antibiotic resistance). Therefore God and evolution could not be more unlike, in terms of their evidential basis: God is wholely lacking in non-anecdotal evidence, whereas evolution is one of the most evidentially-supported theories (and facts) in the entire field of biology. You might as well say that there's just as much reason to believe in Shiva as there is to believe in gravity; just because you aren't familiar with all the evidence in support of gravity, or just because you find the gravity-believers so vehement that you mistake their near-certainty as being based on faith rather than on massive amounts of evidence, doesn't make these two unlike things at all similar.[5]

Anyway, as for the "reductio ad absurdum" issue, there is a simple way to resolve this: WP:NOR. If no reliable source has ever said that Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a reductio ad absurdum, then it would be a violation of Wikipedia policy for us to insert this personal analysis of ours into the article, even if we're sure it's correct. Wikipedia reorganizes and reports on information in secondary sources; it does not interject brand-new ideas or interpretations into articles. -Silence 16:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think that this discussion has lost its way somewhere. The point of Pastafarianism is a reductio ad absurdum argument against the teaching of ID in school science classes as an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection. Pastafarianism is not directly an attack on religious belief. The reductio ad absurdum argument in this case goes somethying like this:

X:Why do you think that Intelligent Design should be taught in school science classes as an alternative to evolution?
Y:Because ID explains the same observed phenomenon and cannot be disproven.
X:Ahh, okay. But that is also true of Pastafarianism, which explains the same phenomenon as ID and Evolution, and which cannot be disproved. So if we allow ID to be taught in school scence classes, then it follows that we must also allow Pastafarianism to be taught in school science classes. As that is an obviously absurd proposition, then your stated reasons for teaching ID are shown to be insufficient/invalid/absurd.

This is related to, but should not be confused with Russell's Teapot, a reductio absurdum argument against religion. Pastafarianism has a much more specific and simple goal - to keep religion out of school science classes. Leeborkman 01:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

critism

shouldn't there be a part saying that some people thinking it's silly nonsence? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.200 (talk • contribs) .

Why? Unlike with other religions this should be blatantly obvious, even to (most of…) its followers. Femto 18:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the whole point of the FSM is that it's retarded. The only kind of criticism it gets is from people who say the founder of the FSM's church will burn in hell, but no one cares about what these idiots have to say anyway.Dali 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the religion. --InShaneee 21:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

GA - Pass

1: Well written, etc: Check 2: Accurate, verifiable: Check 3: Broad in coverage: Check 4: NPOV: Aye. 5: Stable: Aye 6: Images: Probably. However, I would like a double-check on copyright status of images: HAVE they been releases into the public domain? If so, can you say where this is stated in the image information.

...Whilst there are some doubts, I'm going to assume good faith about the images, and let the article pass. Please fix it ASAP, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Shouldn't this have a criticism section where people try to disprove the existence of FSM are represented. That would be great.

When a "criticism" section is added to the Jesus Christ article, then it should be added here. X96lee15 01:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No. See, because most religious people recognize FSM as a parody, they don't feel the need to "disprove" it. And since no-one has disproven the existence of FSM, that would be just asking for editors to come along and add original research. Also note the section about the BoingBoing challenge under "History and developments". --Grace 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I talked to Jesus the other night and he said that the FSM doesn't exist. Shouldn't that be enough? Cowicide 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just add something like "In November 2006, Jesus said that the FSM does not exist" to the Jesus article as soon as there is a reliable source. --Danogo 07:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus has since retracted his statement to me. Apparently Jesus and the noodly one hang out somewhere on Mars together on occasion. Anyway, I'm thinking there are ppl out there that are critical of not the premise of FSM but the effectiveness of making a point via the creation and celebration of FSM. I'm sure we can find a wacko out there somewhere who want to desperately "disprove" the existence of FSM, but that's not what I"m saying... I'm saying there may be ppl (who are far less wacko) out there that are critical of the purpose behind FSM, etc. Just a thought. Cowicide 08:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Spaghetti, of all things

Why the heck did these nitwits choose a spaghetti monster for this "religion"? Why didn't they choose a giant mouse or dog or something? Why a spaghetti monster? 4.159.5.97 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume because he felt it would be the most ridiculous thing possible. I gather from your response that he was right. Kasreyn 08:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They didn't choose the spaghetti monster... the spaghetti monster chose them. Cowicide 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramen Brother, Ramen.MikeURL 19:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Mystic's View

Yes, I'm back. Joy.

Looks like "concensus" has decided to vote against my religion (again.) Let's try this, then, from a slightly different approach. This is my account of how I found Pastafarianism, and why you should remove the word "parody" from its description in the first paragraph and also on the disambiguation page at FSM.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a God. Use the unknown mystery and the First Creator arguments together, if you want some background. So, we have a God. Can we assume anything about it besides its existence? Nope, not really. However, we DO have some revelations from throughout history. The important thing to remember, though, is that there is no such thing as a perfect person (much less a perfect editor, shhh), so nobody will be able to convey God accurately. So, I decided a while back to do some reading and see what people have said about God.

There is a God, or a natural divinity describable as a Creator. Even the polytheistic religions agree on the unity of the original creator. The Greeks describe a Chaos, and Hindus have Brahman. Buddhism and Greek tradition say that God's actual existence is not comprehensible to us, but that's alright. Existence is the first step.
People agree that, on a general level, God created all life. God created humans and gave them intelligence. This is supported by the Abrahamic tradition, and also by Zoroastrianism and Hinduism.
People also agree that God is good. Zoroastrians actually ascribe all good to God, and all evil to an equal and opposite entity, turning the universe into a "cosmic battleground." This idea filtered into Mithraism and later Christianity, which is why Christian mythos rings with ideas of heaven, hell, and Satan. (The imagery in the Book of Revelations doesn't help at all.) Islam ascribes good to God and Paradise, instructing followers to conquer their personal evil in order to reach God. Sufis and Buddhas go one step farther, saying that God is only reachable upon a realization of personal unity with all (enlightenment.) Judaism ascribes God to good, with a set of Laws that must be followed.
The point of life is to propagate life. This is the first one that not everybody agrees on. While no religion is nihilist, most of them do condone (or not prohibit) killing, with the notable exceptions of Jainism, Christianity, and Judaism. (Judaism technically only prohibits murder and unjust killing.)
Of course, everybody seems to contend that religion is absolute and disparate, and so lots of people kill each other for practicing the "wrong" religion. It occurred to me that perhaps people are simply using religion as an excuse to kill people. After all, Catholics and Protestants both believe in the teachings of Jesus, who among other things forbade killing of people under any circumstances, even in self-defense. Nonetheless, Catholics and Protestants took great pride in killing each other for nothing more and nothing less than to say that people may alter the word of God in any way they please, as long as they hold power. It thus follows that either there is no God whatsoever, or God has simply been ignored by those who kill in His name. At any rate, this particular point is important: God does not approve of killing people.
God would like acknoledgement. Every religion agrees (excepting Shinto and Rastafari) that God should be worshipped and acknoledged. Even religions that do not promise an afterlife (Orthodox Judaism comes to mind) stil mandate that God's awesomeness be recognized.
Finally, there is only one God. God might appear to us in various aspects or avatars, but there is only one singular and compelete God. This point should be pretty evident by now. Either all religions are wrong, or they are all somewhat right.

So, how does this relate to Pastafarianism? Simple. Pastafarianism is the only religion that is doctrine-free. We acknoledge that God is far beyond simple comprehension, and thus a Flying Spaghetti Monster seems as plausible as not for realizing Him. After all, we use masculine pronouns for genderless God, right?

The pirates and pasta are not necessarily important as they are. What is important is what they symbolize. They are the garments and food that we have to remind us of God's eternal and always-present existence.

There isn't really a beer volcano or stripper factory in heaven. There's something better. There's God. A beer volcano and stripper factory are just visualizable ideas that help give incentive to potential converts. Of course, I suppose that God could always arrange for a beer volcano... Pointless for me, though, as I don't drink.

Just like Christians replaced many pagan ceremonies with Christian ideas in order to convert pagans quickly, Pastafarian rituals are mostly designed to be drop-in replacements for existing Judaic and Christian ceremonies. After all, what's important is the true nature of God, not the mere symbols with which we acknoledge Him.

So, there's my Pastafarianism in a nutshell. If you still want to call me a satirist or a fake, I suppose you can. After all, I of all people won't censor you. But don't think that I am okay with belittling my religion. I would like very much for you to respect my beliefs in the same way that I respect yours. - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 00:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, you chose to put your faith into a parody relgion, simply because you believe it to be as valid as other religions. You knew when you chose to believe that you were choosing a fake religion. You may justify this by suggesting that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an avatar; simply an image of the one true god, but this avatar was designed by humans without divine intervention. Impressive. I didn't think it was possible for people to choose to have faith like that. What I do know is that you are asking other editors to respect that decision, and to acknowledge that Pastafarianism is somehow not a parody when someone chooses to believe in it. Bold, to be sure, but I doubt you'll have much luck. By choosing to believe in a specific deity simply because it seems to be a valid choice to you, I feel you are belittling other religions. Pastafarianism isn't as valid a religion as established religion unless you hold established religions in very low regard. -- Ec5618 01:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, the parody nature of the matter is sourced and verified. If you can find a reliable source that says there are are serious adherents then it can be included with an appropriate note. However, I have to echo Ec a bit. I at least can't wrap my mind around someone believing in a deity that they know was made up as a joke and then getting upset when the deity is described by others as a joke. JoshuaZ 01:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

JoshuaZ, all i have to say is; Hydrogen and Stupidity!Hypnosadist 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which means? JoshuaZ 04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

They are the two most common elements in the universe according to Albert Einstein. Hypnosadist 04:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

At risk of sounding cynical, I was born into religion whose main tenets include that two millennia ago a man was stapled to a tree for preaching love and equality, and today his most ardently vocal supporters advocate hate and destruction upon all believers. Before that, the main religion in the area revolved around following a set of over 600 rules that were laid down by a rather eccentric deity, who promised a group of people some land in return for devoted worship. They were overseen by a people whose religion was not even traditional, but was inherited from the polytheistic Hellenes and Egyptians and had evolved at the time into a rather singular worship of the emperor as a personified sun deity. Rather interesting, huh?

"Impressive. I didn't think it was possible for people to choose to have faith like that."

Faith is all about choice. There is no such thing as reliable, verifiable, watertight, perfect, empirical evidence demonstrating the existence of God. We choose to believe in God's existence. Such belief is called faith.

"I feel you are belittling other religions."

I cannot dictate your feelings. I personally feel that the Chinese food I had for dinner is not sitting well with me. You might not feel that way. At any rate, I believe that all other religions of the world got at least some of the nature of the divine correct. Also, they are all very old, and I have a personal saying regarding age: "Old people deserve at least some respect from me in that they have lived longer than I have."

"If you can find a reliable source that says there are are serious adherents then it can be included with an appropriate note."

How interesting that I am not a reliable source for my own beliefs. If you'd like a public statement, handwritten in ink and signed personally by myself and the rest of my Pastafarian acquaintances, I can always arrange for that. (Note: I'm not being sarcastic. My diction suffers when I have not slept for a while.)

"Pastafarianism isn't as valid a religion as established religion unless you hold established religions in very low regard."

I suppose the Romans might have said the same thing around 50 AD. "This 'Christianity' isn't as valid as the worship of Sol Invictus, because, y'know, the Emperor really is the Sun God." The only advantage that I have over the original adherents of the "New Way" is that I'm not in danger of being horribly and cruelly martyred in a symbolic fashion for my beliefs. - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 10:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but posts on a talk page do not qualify as a reliable source. You are in all likelihood trolling. — Matt Crypto 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested. Could you please respond to JoshuaZ's post? -- Ec5618 13:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

{{hangon}} a day. Matt, I'm somewhat surprised that you would accuse me of trolling. I guess things really have changed since I've been away. At any rate, I would be more than glad to get a statement signed by my colleagues if you'll wait a day. I'm not trolling. A troll's purpose in life is to incite flames. My purpose on this talk page is to beg respect. - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 09:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Corbin, but the odds that you genuinely believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster are essentially zero. Wikipedia is not the place to make your misguided point. — Matt Crypto 10:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, Corbin, this is what it boils down to. Whether you and your acquaintances choose to take Pastafarianism and believe in it honestly is irrelevant. What matters is that it was originally intended as a parody religion, and as far as we know, the vast majority of people professing to follow it do so for satirical purposes. You are in a distinct minority; I'm sorry if you feel disrespected, but you didn't have to choose a religion deliberately created as a joke to believe in. Being "disrespected" is something you should have foreseen. Kasreyn 23:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Proof that I am not alone.

"...and as far as we know, the vast majority of people professing to follow it do so for satirical purposes."

What I'm trying to say here is that you now know better. As usual, I will deliver a somewhat witty, sort of biting, and completely, ridiculously, absurdly overextended thought: Does Scientology deserved to be mocked in an encyclopedia? No, of course not. This is an encyclopedia. We do respect religions here, despite public opinion, right? Don't we? - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 08:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"...the odds that you genuinely believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster are essentially zero."

Okay, now I'm going pedantic. First, odds are a ratio of one number to another. The first number is the quantity of attempts which will fail, and the second number is the quantity of attempts which will succeed. The odds of 19 to 1 against is equivalent to a probability of 5%. You probably meant to say that the probability that I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is zero. ("Essentially zero" is superfluous, because zero's status as the minimum whole number is not contested, and so a simple "zero" will suffice.)

On top of all that, I do believe, and probability has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Belief is as simple as a statement, and I have given you multiple such statements. For you to continue to deny my belief, either rhetorically or categorically, is illogical and incredulous. You sound like Cartman in the South Park Movie. He has this great line where he attempts to apologize to Kyle by denying Kyle's Jewish heritage. I believe his words were, "Kyle, I'm sorry. You're not a Jew." Kyle's response, unsurprisingly, was, "Goddammit Cartman yes I am!"

WP:V

Man, don't you know better than to quote policy to me, especially when I'm pedantic? Summarized rule #3 of the Verifiability Policy states, (and I quote,) "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." What I am asking for here is the removal of the word "parody" from the phrase "parody religion" in the opening paragraph because it is not a verifiable, accurate descriptor. There is, according to policy, no burden of proof on me. I am already past that point, and am currently attempting to reach a new consensus. - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No. The fact that Pastarianism is a parody religion is well sourced. That it is a real religion, with real followers, is not. The burden of proof is, in fact, on you, to prove that Pastafarianism is a religion. -- Ec5618 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories. The common ground between a parody religion with satirical followers, "and a real religion, with real followers," is that both are a subset of the set of all religions with followers. Pastafarianism is a religion, and it has followers. You can't place it in the subset "parody religions with satirical followers" because you now have evidence that demonstrates that it has traits such as "real followers" nonexistent in that subset. Thus, although you cannot place it in the "parody religions" container, you can still keep it in the larger "religions" container.

I am going to assume that what you mean is that my own claim of belief in Pastafarianism is not verifiable. That argument would make more sense given your current position and some of the key words you are using. Then, your argument distills to the following statement: "Since we have evidence that places Pastafarianism in the 'parody religions' category, but no verifiable evidence to the contrary, we see no reason to move Pastafarianism from its current categorization."

So, if you don't mind, I'd like to change the nature of the discussion slightly. Is there any possible, verifiable, alternative motive which I might have for asking for this change? I won't expand on this point yet, but I am interested somewhat in your response. - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 08:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn: Found this from the archives. My diction, as usual, sounded like a 16-year-old with a fever on Nyquil, but it's still a decent point.

"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)"

Illustrates my feelings towards the claim, "Henderson wasn't serious." - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, you do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster specifically. You embrace symbolism of your own design and you believe in a deity. You believe that the image of a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as the image of an elderly man, or any other image. That isn't Pastafarianism, that's general theism. Substitute any other image, with similar symbolism, and your 'faith' remains just as strong.

Now, I disagree that 'parody religion' is a subset of 'real religion'. Obviously, parody religions are not religions, but parodies. We put them in the 'Joke religions' category, which is in the 'fictional religions' category, which is in the 'Religious faiths, traditions, and movements' category. As such, the burden of proof remains on you to prove that Pastafarianism is anything more than a (sometimes misunderstood) parody.

Finally, Henderson was serious when he thought up the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He was knowingly creating a parody, to ridicule intelligent design. It is you who is as Jesus was; the first real prophet of your religion. It is you who is basically concluding that this Flying Spaghetti joke is inadvertently a powerful deity. Henderson certainly never did. -- Ec5618 09:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

At least this parody of a discussion is amusing. And to me it - especially the numbered bullet points above - illustrates the point of FSM/Pastafarianism - that all religions are fairy tales and the more their adherents try to defend them, the more ridiculous they sound. Nevertheless, the fact that one or a few people "believes" in something, does not make it non-parody; in fact it seems to be "the exception that proves the rule". The more you argue for your beliefs, the more you illustrate why FSM is a parody.--Justfred 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Holidays

Are there Pastafarian holidays? Specifically, is there a winter solstice holiday? Do they have seasonal music, or do they just play "O Sole Mio" or "Fifteen Men on a Dead Man's Chest?" If you ask for time off, when is it, and how long? This isn't really a serious question, but in the light of the parody I wonder if there's an answer.--Justfred 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Found it myself, it's "Holiday". [6] Don't suppose it's worth mentioning in the article.--Justfred 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fridays are holy days. Halloween and Holiday are religious celebrations. - Corbin ^{Be excellent}_(TINC) 05:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You forgot "Talk Like A Pirate Day". And ye be calling yeself a believer, maytey?--Justfred 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Parody

Find a source for this, this should not be too hard but "beleivers" always play it straight as thats the whole point. This load of rubish can't be distinguished from any other totally unprovable fantasy or the religions we all love.Hypnosadist 15:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the archives. -- Ec5618 15:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for a source for the article not the opinions of wikipedians.Hypnosadist 15:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See section Sources Describing FSM as a Parody or Satire above for a list of sources. Weregerbil 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Venganza FAQ also pretty much proves it. Apparently, Bobby Henderson, the great prophet, doesn't object to religion, though he doubts that there is a god. [7]

In any case, you changed to article to read that Pastafarianism is a religion. Please provide a credible source. -- Ec5618 16:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, you were given several sources. Don't WP:POINT. -- Ec5618 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I knew it would come in handy sometime! Thanks for pointing it out, Weregerbil. :) Kasreyn 03:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And I don't believe I mentioned anything about the Grauniad, sorry if I misunderstand but it looks like you're not looking at the linky I gave.--Alf ^melmac 16:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Read your own link, the article was quoting a Guardian FAQ (that link is on the page), that link is unlike the source you gave was notable. PS it does not call it a parody religion.Hypnosadist 16:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"a pro-evolution satire against intelligent design" and I think it's conjecture that the article "is quoting Guardian FAQ". Links don't have to be notable, it is a site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.--Alf ^melmac 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Read your link, "For those who don't already know what “FSM” is all about, according to the London Guardian’s FAQ on intelligent design, “Flying Spaghetti Monsterism” is “a satirical 'religion' created by Bobby Henderson, a physics graduate of Oregon State University.”"Hypnosadist 16:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ps i'm asking for a source to a claim not for an interesting link to tag onto the end of the page WP:EL is not relivent.Hypnosadist 16:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So both sources agree it's a satire on religion. Good, feel free to add the link that I didn't.--Alf ^melmac 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Damnit man, you were given several sources. The second line of the source added to the article by Alf reads "Not so for one website, the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" (FSM), a pro-evolution satire against intelligent design". The article then goes on to list reasons for coming to that conclusion. If that doesn't satisfy you, then look at some of the other sources.

Again, the Venganza FAQ also pretty much proves it. Apparently, Bobby Henderson, the great prophet, doesn't object to religion, though he doubts that there is a god. [8]

In any case, you changed to article to read that Pastafarianism is a religion. Please provide a credible source. Don't make things worse. -- Ec5618 16:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. It does not say its a religion in the current edit!

2. All claims in wikipedia must be sourced and there was no source, there is now though its of a non-notable site it has atleast decent information and the link to the guardian article. So i'll live with it as the article is better now.

3.Satire and parody are different, the source says satire and so should the article. I'm not going to do it today because of 3rr but other people can.Hypnosadist

"Parody" and "Satire" do have a different dictionary definitions, yes. However, the link is to "parody religion", which is not quite the same thing, if there were a page at Satirical religion it should/would be a redirect to Parody religion. You say WP:EL doesn't apply and then comment about it not being a notable site, I just don't understand that, sorry. --Alf ^melmac 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You say that you removed the word parody because there was no source to back it up. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy in calling something a religion without a source.

Don't complain that there is only a single source in the article. You were given, and I can't seem to stress this enough, several sources. You were given several sources. You could have easily found a source, or used one of the ones provided to you, but you chose not to. Don't complain that there are no sources.

In any case, feel free to improve the article, but don't force others to clean up your messes. -- Ec5618 17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Its up to editor to provide sources for thier claims not for other people to do it, and please be civil i'm not a hypocrite, as the gospels and the website are the sources that say it is a religion Ec.Hypnosadist 17:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You are an editor. As such, you are allowed to find sources. When you ask for sources, and people give you sources, that really shouldn't be too difficult. Instead, you replaced one unsourced claim with an obviously false one, since we all know Henderson created the FSM to mock intelligent design. I'm sorry, but that's not helpful. -- Ec5618 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well again according to the official page http://www.venganza.org/about/ , FSM is a real religion and not a joke. helohe (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"since we all know Henderson created the FSM to mock intelligent design.Yes, but the reason why something is created can be independent to what it becomes. Does FSM have believing adherents of this faith? Or do they all profess to believe only in a pretend fashion so as to mock and make fun of the real religions? It is possible that Christianity, say, was first invented as a joke too, but its followers became serious despite the intetions of the creators of Christianity.Giovanni33 06:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly Giovanni, and above i have pointed out how pastafarianism can be a real religion as part of a Erisian or Chaos Magick faith system. Also there is no consensus on this issue as many editors do not think FSM should be called a parody, they have said this many times and a few editor keep ignoring that.Hypnosadist 15:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Many? I've been here quite some time and here's what I've seen: at any given time, the vast majority of editors here understand and agree that FSM was intended as a parody (or satire, if you prefer). And at any given time there is about one editor who claims otherwise. When this editor gets tired, they go elsewhere and are eventually replaced by (or reincarnated as?) another lone editor against the group. This is to say, at any given time, the "FSM is real" argument is always distinctly in the minority at this talk page, its supporters numbering from zero to one. Thus the wide consensus supporting FSM's description as a parody, as well as the talk page disclaimer above. Please do not misrepresent the numbers of editors involved or where the consensus lies. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "most"? As far as I can tell from the comments there are more people who support taking out the use of the word "parody" than those who support its use.MikeURL 19:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No trolling, please. — Matt Crypto 21:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not trolling.MikeURL 03:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you've lost all credibility here. We're just waiting for you to get bored and leave. Shoehorn 05:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I want the same thing as you--the best article possible.MikeURL 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Shoehorn its you and ultimately wikipedia that has "lost all credibility here". I understand the tactic of the clic that opperates here which is to insult and badger until "you to get bored and leave". MikeURL makes 5 editors i can remember wanting to raise this issue only to be shouted down. The leader of this religion says its real, and so do many of its websites, the people you quote that its a parody are not asociated with pastafarianism or have qualifications in modern religious movements so are not NOTABLE.Hypnosadist 13:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, read WP:V- what major newspapers have to say is very relevant. Now, if you can find a WP:RS that says it isn't a parody then you might have some claim. Until then it is very clear what should be here per Wiki policy. JoshuaZ 23:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, the "Pastafarians" are hardly being shouted down, for they make up the bulk of the noise on this talk page. The truth is, no one is "associated" with pastafarianism, it is not a legitimate religious movement; the FSM is simply a tiresome internet meme with a book and a website, and you should be happy it has gotten the recognition it deserves. Feel free to invite all your internet friends into this discussion, and we will hold a consensus debate to resolve this issue. Until then, accounts that repeatedly make inappropriate edits to this page will be dealt with in the normal manner. Shoehorn 03:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. He should not invite his internet friends here under any circumstances. That would amount to meatpuppetry and would not alter the consensus. JoshuaZ 06:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right JoshuaZ meatpuppetry (I love that word its sooo DIRTY) is bad. FSM is not a "tiresome internet meme with a book and a website" it has since been propagated by the Net.Hypnosadist 13:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I consider myself a Pastafarian, and I'm certainly not being shouted down. Of course, I'm the "realizes it's a parody and is in on the joke" kind of Pastafarian, ie., a member of the majority. Kasreyn 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, I too can remember about five editors who have clamored that WP should not call FSM a parody. Now, if all five had been here at the same time, maybe they could have affected consensus. However, as I pointed out above, it's pretty much a case of one arriving to take over the minority position soon after another quits. Therefore we have no way of knowing if those five are even separate people or whether ongoing sockpuppet trolling is ocurring (yes yes, WP:AGF and all, but the arguments and writing style seem rather similar to me; for now I will withhold judgment). And if you don't think a troll would do that sort of thing, I think you need more experience of trolls. From my experiences on sites like kuro5hin.org and elsewhere, I know that disrupting an article like this and preventing any useful work on it while people battle endlessly over a trivial point is exactly the sort of entertainment trolls prefer. Kasreyn 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's entirely clear that people arguing that this is not parody do so insincerely because they want to make a point. What point? The point Hypnosadist makes at the top of this section: "This load of rubish can't be distinguished from any other totally unprovable fantasy or the religions we all love." That's the point of the FSM satire; however, the purpose of the Wikipedia article is not to participate in that satire, but to describe it. Hypnosadist, as well as the "many other user", know full well that nobody actually genuinely believes in this, but they argue so disingenuously in order to make a point about religion. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for this. Please desist. — Matt Crypto 21:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No what i'm saying is that an entertainment reporter is not a notable source to say this is a Parody, a chief reporter on religious affairs i could live with but preferably a Prof of Modern or Comparitive Religion should be used. That this is a parody is an extrodinary claim that needs a high level of Notability. There is nothing disingenuous about that! Hypnosadist 14:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And to boot, I now face eternity burning in wiki-hell for having added a cite nowhere near a punctuation mark, may the great spirit of the MoS be merciful and forgive a poor sinner's editing.--Alf ^melmac 00:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add mention to the page that the creator of this religion does not consider it a parody as per http://www.venganza.org/about/.MikeURL 18:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Glen S has added this and I support the addition. I consider the matter resolved.MikeURL 02:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If it hasn’t been clear up to this point, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is entirely a spoof on real religion and religious followers; Henderson was clearly taking advantage of the lack of methodological evidence supporting Intelligent Design in an attempt to expose its fallacies as a scientific theory.

Hmmm, "a chief reporter on religious affairs" eh? I'm going with James Randi's site calling it a satirical attack on the teaching of Creationism in American schools. A major voice on paranormal that fits your request for notable comment.--Alf ^melmac 21:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that source. Hypnosadist 14:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The DI's opinion of the FSM

Would it be reasonable to mention that the Discovery Institute has made public statements that accuse Pastafarians as mocking all Christian thought? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html -EarthRise33 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Has mainstream media discussed it? If some people are just shouting into the wind all by themselves, it's not Wikipedia's job to act as their soapbox. But it's different if it has sparked non-fleeting non-trivial public discussion. Weregerbil 09:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not finding anything on it. Nvm, then. Thanks. -EarthRise33 13:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the DI would seem to be relevant... Intelligent Design is basically their brainchild, and FSM was clearly deliberately crafted to mock ID. It would seem to be a straightforward rebuttal. I say we include it. Kasreyn 23:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

DI's opinion on this matter is inherently notable and relevant, because DI is the ID organization, and FSM is a parody of ID. If FSM was a parody of Catholicism, the Pope's opinion would of FSM would be inherently relevant; for the same reason, the Discovery Institute's opinion is inherently relevant to this article. -Silence 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this brings up another point. FSMism is only portrayed in a positive light by the contents of this article. Might it be wise to include a generalized "Criticism of FSM" section that encompasses all notions of dissent, from the one board member who chided Bobby for sacrilege to the complete disapproval voiced by the DI? -EarthRise33 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, by all means. Put the DI's criticism and that of any other notable source in a criticism section. I'm not sure where you get the "positive light" part, but it's true that we've mostly been covering the issue from the inside-looking-out viewpoint. Kasreyn 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure put it in. I wonder though if the DI realizes that making loud noises about his this is an attack on religion undermines their claim that ID isn't religous? JoshuaZ 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I be the one to put it in, or is that the territory of a Moderator? -EarthRise33 17:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it. In general, anyone can edit almost anything (Wikipedia also doesn't have moderators, but admins who functions more as janitors than anything else. See WP:ADMIN. JoshuaZ 23:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Pirates vs Ninjas

Okay, this is only a theory I came up with, so it actually doesn't belong here, but I think it sounds plauable, and if anyone can get in contact with Bobby Henderson, may his noodly apendage bless him, maybe he can verify how true it is. Here goes... Meatballs and spaghetti were, until recently, unknown of in Japan, so the Flying Spaghetti Monster, blessed be his noodly appendage, had to assume the form of the "Flying Noodle Monster", basicly, he only transformed the meatballs into uzumaki buns, and when the pirates and the ninjas first met, the suspicious ninjas believed that the pirates were trying to corrupt their religion, and an enemity broke out because of this misunderstanding... Well, any opinions? 217.208.25.160 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. --InShaneee 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, which is why I included the "so it actually doesn't belong here" part. Thing is, I have none whatsoever sence of direction, and to do matter worse, I don't even know where my goal is (in this case, a discussion forum), so I turned to the only place where I knew I could get serious replies to a not-quite-as-serious theory... The theory in itself is ridiculous, but I was dead serious when I posted it, and I still am... Since the Pastafarian religion focuses so much on pirates, why wouldn't it hold a reliable (at least as reliable as the rest of the religion) answer to why ninjas and pirates appears to hate each other? I just thought I had a farfetched, but still plausabe, theory to expand on. 217.208.25.160 16:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Venganza.org, the official FSM website, has a forum. You can get to it from the main page by clicking the "Worship" button up top.

I think the Gospel touches on ninja, but I can't rememeber exactly what was said, and my copy isn't at hand. --Sparky Lurkdragon 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

1) The Gospel makes no mention of the FSM creating the enmity between pirates and ninjas. Pirates and ninjas hate one another out of their inherently opposite characters.

2) This idea should be released into the FSM forums for consideration, in that the Wikipedia article is reporting on the phenomenon of the FSM, not about every possible belief and satire that may arise resulting from such a religion. -EarthRise33 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks everyone, I'll check with the forums... Bye, for now. 217.208.25.160 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

fictional diety

it says "fictional diety." At what point to dieties become more than fictional? MotherFunctor 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Careful now. That's treading on religious offense. The FSM can be held as fictional since the religion was created solely as a satire, and the followers (for the most part) don't actually hold that the FSM exists. -EarthRise33 19:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is "fictional" bolded? Gurko 12:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Myspace worm

Do we really need to mention the FSM Myspace worm? It seems awfully unrelated to the actual Pastafarianism concept. -EarthRise33 19:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Repost: Sources.

Since no one seems to be reading it before they post, please check the above section entitled Sources Describing FSM as a Parody or Satire, and please refer to WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V when considering arguments that WP should portray FSM as a genuine religious faith. If anyone can find further sources documenting Henderson's intention of FSM as a satire/parody (as if any more were needed), please feel free to add them to the above section. Now can we all start working on something more important on this article than just continuing to futilely rehash this single point? Cheers, Kasreyn 08:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Glen S and what Henderson believes

The reference added by Glen S to "appease" people on the parody needs to be examined more closely. Henderson claims the church has existed in secrecy for hundreds of years, and has millions of devout worshippers. Either Henderson is delusional, or this link is not meant to be taken seriously. As it stands, the reference is little more than fancruft, albeit fancruft contributed by a Wikipedia Administrator. So much for that Good Article status. Shoehorn 08:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Our job is not to decide whether Henderson is "delusional" or not, or job is to report the facts. There is no denying Henderson claims this is legit on his website - reporting it should not change whether or not the article reaches "good article status". Besides, this is a wiki, if you feel strongly about it - change it! I was just trying to find a happy median and end the edit warring. Glen 08:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia editor must be able to tell the difference between humor and reality. Weregerbil 10:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can tell the difference but wikipedia policy states anything wikipedia says should be backed up by notable and verifable sources. As to "This may be a case were the parody is implied by the absurdity of the claims." well thats how i feel about ID that its a parody of science but i can't start the ID article off with a statement like that. Hypnosadist 14:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, stop being disingenuous. You understand full well the distinction between parody and genuine belief, and we all know what is going on here. No reasonable person could contend that Flying Spaghetti Monster is anything but parody. You want to make the argument that real religious belief is as absurd as belief in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fine — indeed, that's the intent of the parody itself — and you are entitled to make that argument elsewhere. However, disrupting a Wikipedia article to make that point is not appropriate. — Matt Crypto 21:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the above comment. PS i'm not "disrupting a Wikipedia article to make that point". Hypnosadist 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what you are doing. — Matt Crypto 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Be civil, stop throwing accusations around.Hypnosadist 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This may be a case were the parody is implied by the absurdity of the claims. It should be noted that satirical newspaper The Onion dose not state anywhere on it's web site that it's a parody, yet it's described such such in it's article and by almost every third party source. Every joke dose not come with a disclaimer. Seano1 10:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Does the Onion state categorically on its website that it is 100% legit however? If it did, I am certain this should be included in its article. Yes we all know its a parody, but the fact the founder states outright that it is completely legitimate on the official site is clearly encyclopedic IMHO. I will not edit war however, it seems the decision has been made Glen 10:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Onion boldly proclaims to be America's Finest News Source, so yes, I'd say it makes as strong a claim to be legit as Henderson does. Yet an encyclopedia should not claim that the Onion editors genuinely think everything they print is true. Surely we can tell reality from jokes this obvious? For those who can't, fortunately WP:RS discusses the issue of self-published sources. However "official" a web site is, it is not immediately an encyclopedic source. Weregerbil 10:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently 3 of the references for this article go to http://www.venganza.org/. Perhaps those, and the material they relate to in the article, should be deleted as well? In fact, references 9,11,13,14,15,16,17,18 and 19 look questionable with a few that are clearly not RS.MikeURL 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)