![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Discuss the merge of the
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster into
Flying Spaghetti Monster here. --
JoeBlowfromKokomo
02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I withdrawed the merge. Someone who has read the book seriously needs to expand The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though. -- JoeBlowfromKokomo 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Started: /Archive 01#keep an open mind
Isn't it POV to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fictional? Do the God, Allah or Jesus articles start off by calling them fictional? -- Jamiem
FSM is not mentioned on Wikipedia because it is a religion with actual followers. It is listed because it is an interesting internet phenomenon. It has no followers, though there are people, followers if you will, who are in on the joke. It is notable because it is a phenomenon, not because it is a religion. Any first paragraph that claims FSM is an actual religion is kidding itself. -- Ec5618 11:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
There is an ongoing edit war over the use of the word "fictional" in this article. This is very sad. This article is of very poor quality, the section on "Beliefs" is pure fancruft. Please invest your energy in more worthy pursuits. Shoehorn 02:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever happens to the word fake in the introduction, I felt like reminding you that the whole point of FSM was to prove the point that evidence isn't needed for something to be real (a la creationism, of course). I suppose in the same way, Scientology is equally fake, since Mr. Hubbard clearly stated that he wanted to create a religion to make money and get power - not to mention the highly satirical nature and subject matter of his novels. - Drrngrvy 03:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I would categorize myself as a pastafarian after looking into many religons. I like the fact that there is no
and with FSM you can
Anyway - there are real FSM believers out there
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by andman8 ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 December 2005).
Aside from Discordia's whole post-modern can't-tell-if-its-belief-or-not, we also know that many many practicing Anglican Priests & Jewish rabbis do not bellieve in god at all. So religion is not just about "mindless christian belief". For many people, its about culture, or less radical forms of belief. Even in the U.S., how many christians don't believe in god, but believe that belief in god is healthy for society? andman8's "believe in something fun" isn't really very different from most of the reasons I've ever heard for true non-christians converting to christianity, although intra-christian evangelical conversions are usually something considerably less rational. JeffBurdges 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Auther Douglas Adams wrote of dozens of religions in his Hitchhiker's Guide and Dirk Gently books. If what some of you are saying is true, then logic works something like this: Douglas wrote into being 20+ true religions. Each one is sacred and as such is protected from scrutiny and being labled as fiction. Adams died an activist athist and will be suprised to dicover this irony when he gets to one of his newly invented heavens. We are able to say that Adam's religions were fiction because we know the man and the work. We are able to do the same with this author and his work. It is a fool's folly to invest in this unless you can make big bucks from it. There is no other gain to be had of it other than how it was intended; a great big middle finger at world religions and academia politics. <yawn> I bored now. You had your 15 minutes of "fame".
About half of those Americans who question unguided evolution are Creationists who reject the fossil record, and the other half believe in something akin to Intelligent Design (which regards the fossil record as authentic).
It's generally accepted that ID is part of a strategy to promote Creationism. But idea that God created the fossils as false clues, however, is not part of ID. Even those ID adherents who identify the Intelligent Designer as God don't say this.
On the other hand, FSM was created to make certain arguments, and one of its arguments might be that ID *is* Creationism and that all schools of thought with Creationism are one and the same. That is, FSM (or the campaign it supports) might regard all Evolution opponents as having identical (even regimented) beliefs.
If so, how can we describe their view of their opponents accurately and fairly?
We need a policy on Wikipedia:describing POV about opposing POV. Uncle Ed 15:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a little minor NPOV note here: Young Earth Creationists don't nessicarily reject the "fossil record" they reject the dates that evolutionists attribute to the fossil record, and the methods used to find them. -- Nerd42 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
So, still think that ID creationists don't dispute the fossil record? — Dunc| ☺ 21:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sold, FSM is a more well designed parody then I had realized. And this whole section of the talk page is silly. Thanks. :) JeffBurdges 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I was redirected from "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - was it decided that an article on the monster itself is not warranted? -- jp3z 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This component of the theory highlights the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation.
Isn't that somewhat redundent and uninformitive? I wonder what is really ment by this? Mike92591 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)
Just because you don't understand something yet doesn't mean it's nonsense. 24.22.58.51 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Pirates have been making a comeback in 2005 and 2006. The majority of the pirate activity (at least the most newsworthy pirate activity) seems confined to Africa. -- 70.189.120.111 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hasn't the number of pirates been increasing since the advent of the original Napster and other peer-to-peer file sharing systems, whose architectures encourage widespread copyright infringement? -- Damian Yerrick 03:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Them's arrrren't real priates, matey. Them's are college kids who don't want to pay for things they have access to illegally. In the strictest religious sense, read 'pirates' as 'buccaneers.' Shaggorama 22:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[[
I am a pirate!!! We are alive and well!!!]]
But I don wanna be a pirate!
you don't have to be, just convert your friends! katkat 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a graph of the decline in pirate numbers on the site http://www.venganza.org/ Feral Mutant 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I read about the pirate fish. What is it?
Do you support creating a separate article for His Noodly Appendage the Flying Spaghetti Monster? -- Revolución ( talk) 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
and it rools!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Silence, -ism is only implied for religions which are notable by virtue of having followers. FSM has followers, but thats not why its notable. Our title should lie closer to the source of the notoriety. Also, if both titles redirect to the same page, then google hits are a reason to choose the title.
Finally, I see nothing wrong with giving His Noodly Appendage its own article, as long as its more than just a stub. But all I see here is discussion of the obvious joke, i.e. that christians are noodly for thinking that a god guides everything. If you want to go build a giant noodle to hang off an office building in NYC, and help guide anything below, then I think we might have a case for a His Noodly Appendage article. :) JeffBurdges 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
"Sorry, but why is this content any more like a 'joke' than any other religion?"
If you were to make a "church of the flying spaghetti monster," you would have to pay taxes for the land and on all the donations you would recieve, and it would not be considered a real religion. However, you could somehow get enough people to say they are "pastafarians" in the next census, then it would be a true religion.
I want someone to try that!
katkat
21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten the opening paragraph and deleted large amounts of this article as it is fancruft, and therefore not encyclopedic. Shoehorn 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
My only problem is that most of these facts are officially included in the FSM "doctrine" by Henderson. I wouldn't call it fancruft, maybe just too many useless facts in the article. - Stoph 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call any of the deleted beliefs fancruft, but you may be right that the facts are useless, although it's not hurting anyone to learn a little more about us Pastafarians! Anyway, most of the beliefs (if not all) are backed by Bobby Henderson.- Mightyhog 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article remain NPOV? The wording is harsh to those who believe in the religion. - WAZAAAA 01:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"The "followers" of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are called Pastafarians. Pastafarians occasionally describe FSM as a real religion, though this somewhat negates the original intent of parodying intelligent design."
I felt this was in the interest as neutral point of view, as the following of FSM is no more or less real than the following of any other deity. Pastafarians beliefs are different only because they KNOW that their god is fake, as, they believe, are all deities. ( Pygmypony 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
If supporters of a religious belief consider it a religion then one must extend the common courtesy of considering it a religion even if you do not share in those beliefs. I don’t go around saying that beliefs that I don’t believe in are not actual religions. In the United States every religion is legally equal under the law regardless of the numbers of people that practice it. Legally in the US FSM is just as valid as being a Baptist.
To deny it’s status as a religion is religious discrimination.
That is why the FSM is a religion. -- 8bitJake 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If one person believes it and there are, then it is a legal religion. The origins of the faith is moot and does not matter. Why are you imposing your religious belief on this and discriminating against the FSM religion? -- 8bitJake 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
the religion was started in 2005, and there are already over 3300 members registered on the forum at the official site [2] (and thats just registered forum users, not all followers), so if this religion has gained over 3300 followers in one year alone, isn't that faster than other major religions started growing? if anything, they started with a considerably smaller number of followers in their first years. the way things are going, it looks like this religion will eventually have larger followings than others.
dictionary.com defines religion as "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." isn't that EXACTLY what flying spaghetti monsterism is? isn't that EXACTLY what almost every other major religion is? i say we classify this religion as a parody or satirical religion if anybody can prove to me that their religious leader is real and fsm isn't. Jaybenad 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to have to lock this page? I'm getting tired of people flipping it back and forth from satire to religion. - sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006
How dare you insult by belief system! This is as real a religion as others. Your assignment is completely subjective and discriminatory. Just because it is nascent and you think it's a joke doesn't mean you can force your views on others. I intend to keep categorizing it back to monotheism. Beware the noodly appendage! User:Mxpule
I am amazed, as a follower of the FSM I do belive it is serious, on every survey that asks religion by name, I put it down, my boss knows I am a Pastafarian, all my friends do, I have converted several of them, I belive that all thou you not belive it is serious many other people do. Codemartin
The folowing text
"Pastafarians have faced religious discrimination against their religion by having their beliefs classified as a satire on the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia."
Should be included because to call people's faith a satire is discrimination against their legally protected religious beliefs. It is not a joke it is not satire. It is not up to you to call it that. Should all articles about religion have disclaimers calling them satire and fictional? -- 8bitJake 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There are people that will claim the FSM as their religion thus it is a religion regardless of the possible intentions of the prophet of the FSM religion. It is not ours to judge what is and is not a religion. -- 8bitJake 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There are people that believe it and are willing to claim it is their religion. Thus it is a religion. You don't need to prove faith. That is what makes it faith. -- 8bitJake 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
"no-one believes in FSM" That is not true.
"What is the point of this little exercise?" It is not up to you or anyone to say what is not a religion. -- 8bitJake 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The entire tone of the article indicates that FSM is nothing but a satire. 8bitJake has failed to make note of this, or make edits to address this position, which takes away most of the credibility of his allegations. Shoehorn 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a moot point. There are people that believe FSM as a religious belief and that makes it a religion. Come on this is not rocket science. -- 8bitJake 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps : {{ Suggestprotect}} -- Ec5618 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster"... this is what you get:
"Satirical critique of the intention of the Kansas school board to teach intelligent design in schools as an alternative theory to evolution."
That's the link to the original site, www.venganza.org. what's the first word? SATIRICAL!!!! - sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006
To me, trying to call FSM an actual religion is breaking Wikipedia:No original research. Just because a tiny amount of people believe something, doesn't mean we want to include it. What are your sources for saying FSM is notable as an actual practiced religion?
Also, restated: Most people realize the true value of FSM is its satirical value. To treat it like a real religion actually goes against everything FSM stands for. - Stoph 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The canonization of Christianity goes against everything that Jesus stood for.
I am not sure if I would consider following the FSM for religious purposes goes againt the FSM. Seems a contradiction in terms. Sure its commical at times, but one ofthe fastest way to convert people is through humor. I and many people I know follow the FSM as a religion. What do you mean by sources? Lists of people who worship? Signatures perhaps? Hmm... The FSM is as real as any other religion.-- Codemartin 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to Wikipedia displaying cartoons of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on this page. According to the teachings of Pastafarianism any depiction of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to be considered blasphemy. I demand that the cartoons be taken off the page immediately, or I will boycot Kansas, or something. Eixo 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote for the creation of a poll on the matter. Or maybe three or four polls. Maprieto 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm an administrator on the Flying Spaghetti monster forums, and I can confidently say that you, Eixo, are utterly wrong. Such depictions are by no means forbidden. --Alpaca
Hi there schizm guys. Still coasting on Bobby's work? We're not monolithic, but we're not idiotic either so, please, please be careful with the Word of His Noodlyness, as our faith does teach tolerance and kindness. If yours doesn't, please don't presume to be a part of the myriad Pasta-based religions. He's not that kind of deity. Auntie Dee Dee 05:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You can always start a jihad! Or alternatively you can start a protest againist the cartoon or protest with the those againist the Mohammed cartoons. Pseudoanonymous 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
His divine self controls our movements through his noodly appendage, therefore, any cartoon or other artistic measure, no matter how obsurd, was, in fact, drawn by Him. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a great sence of humour.
As a christian, I can honestly say, this about the funniest damn thing I have ever seen. I'm a little astounded that there is so much genuine debate and concern about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People seem to be overanalyizing (and missing) the joke. Slimdavey 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)slimdavey
This article currently has some. Compare:
The former actually states what the article's subject is: the central figure of a satiric parody religion. The latter utterly fails to in any way address, describe, or explain what the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" actually is in the introductory paragraphs (beyond alluding to its being "the subject of a satirical website", which leaves open the question of whether it's a boat, a rare species of newt, the Prime Minister of Canada, a small asteroid, etc. that's serving as this "subject"), making the entire article useless to anyone who doesn't already know about FSM (i.e. the article's currently geared toward the editors, not the readers). This article is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster—it is not about Bobby Henderson's satirical website, which is only mentioned because of its relevance to the article's subject, not because the website itself is the subject. Ergo the first thing that must be explained is what FSM is (just as the first thing Invisible Pink Unicorn explains is what the IPU is, rather than immediately going into an explanation of its history on Usenet, etc.), not the site where it was popularized!
The last time I came to this article, it did a pretty nice job of explaining right off the bat what the topic was: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a fictional supernatural Creator entity bearing a resemblance to spaghetti and meatballs that serves as the central figure of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical parody religion invented to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented in mid-2005 by U.S. physics major Bobby Henderson and soon became the center of an Internet phenomenon, with followers often calling themselves "Pastafarians" as a play on the Rastafarians." Since then, much of the real content of the article seems to have been slowly drained out by PC-hungry pseudoPastafarians seeking to make a point about FSM being no less of a real "religion" than other religions—a point which, even if true, should be made in other places, not on Wikipedia, where there is a strict ban on original research of this sort. - Silence 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a sentence in the introduction saying that, logically speaking, FSMism is a reductio ad absurdum? Why was this removed? It's neutral, correct, and provides a deeper understanding into the topic. Discuss.loodog 66.240.10.170 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How FSM works: Create a completely silly "religion". Show how the reasoning behind the silly "religion" and the reasoning behind ID are very similar. Thereby showing that the reasoning behind ID can "prove" the silly "religion", hence showing the reasoning is suspect.
It is the very *point* of FSM to be silly. Silliness is absolutely essential. If it is non-silly then the comparison of ID and obvious silliness disappear.
Please do not undermine the very purpose of FSM by pretending it is somehow serious or real. You are doing a great disservice to FSM.
If you wish to expand on the silliness by all means please do so, but not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for that. Wikipedia is about reality; a person should be able to come here and find out the reality behind FSM. One place for contributing in the true spirit of FSM is the Uncyclopedia. — Weregerbil 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"FSM is a fictional deity"? Well, what if you believe, as I do, that all deities are fictional? *Dan T.* 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Although "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" was created as a parody religion, Pastafarians say it is a legitimate one; some argue that the FSM is no more or less fictional than any other deity.
Anybody remember the Jedi census phenomenon? Religion centers on belief. It has nothing to do with politics in most countries, excepting those which follow religious values and interpret them as law.
Don't revert my comments this time, please. - Corbin Be excellent 03:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=the_pastafarians_speak&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
I thought Pastor, but they already exist in Christianity. Anyone know?
Pasta--leader of a congregation Bishop--oversees several congregations within a geographic area ArchBishop--for when there are more groups that the Bishops alone can deal with Pastriarch--Head of the Pastfarian church in a country. Very large countries may have Vice Pastriarchs - VetteDude 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the comments above, it is obvious that there is a dispute on this article's state of NPOV. It cannot be said that there is no dispute, because people are writing here that they do dispute that the article is NPOV, and others are posting that they dispute that the article is NOT NPOV.
I mean, two sides holding different sides of an argument is obviously classified as a dispute.
Regardless as to if you feel this article is NPOV or not, please realize that there it IS under dispute. Guspaz 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, check out this letter, really puts down all those Pastafarians believe, eh?:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2005/09/15/the_church_of_the_flying_spaghetti_monst
199.111.88.238 13:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the book has already been released (I have my copy on hand) I'm going to create an article about the Gospels of FSM. Any assistance you are willing to offer would be greatly appreciated. Link to the article: The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster The Fading Light 5:53, 1 April 2006
Hey, I changed it around a bit to bring out the "religion" part in the first sentence, which people were hiding under all the talk about Boby. However, I did this by making religion into a link to parody religion which people may also object to. I also tried to point out that the Pastafarian position is really completely consistent with one of the major themes in modern (heh) literary thought. JeffBurdges 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, why is the article now soo short? It used to have tons of good stuff! Was there a fork? Content ought to have been easily sourceable since its all on the internet. JeffBurdges 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What is up with this FSM meatballs=meat of Judeo-Christian God stuff? And the Nietzche quote? I have never heard of any of this and I frequent the FSM site...It wasn't within 3 edits of most recent (as far as my quick check found), so I was wondering if this is just something that needs to be reverted? - VetteDude 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
FSM, along with Church of the Subgenious, seem to be the most evangalistic parody religions. It'd be good to have a section on it, I'm sure you can get lots of photos of people in pirate costumes standing on streat corners. Thoughts? JeffBurdges 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this one would make a fine featured article. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is without question, the best article on Wikipedia.... haha... EZZIE 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
MERLINUS FEEDBACK OK, Your for real! All the best to you. I tend to beleive in Creative Atheism myself. In it there is a God, but he doesn't beleive in himself unless he sees his shrink and looks in the mirror and says: "Gosh Darn it... I like myself." I'm also old enough not to believe in dating... unless its done with Carbon Dating! My Words of Wisdom from a self declared fool who Advises"Don't listen to Me" -- merlinus 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus-- merlinus 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I own the "Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster", could I add a bit to the “belief” section without someone coming in behind me and erasing the entry.
-- BarnhouseEffect 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The citation numbers currently don't work. Shawnc 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html with an order of magnitude of 10-32
Yo. I'd like to see this reach GA status, mostly to tick a handful of pretentious kids that sit across from me in Theory of Knowledge class. Anyway, here's what has to happen, in my opinion:
Who's with me? - Corbin Be excellent 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Religion
Who indeed on wikipedia, has the right to call this religion "fake" or a "paradoy" as a follower of the FSM religion, I belive that this should not be considered "fake". Althogh our holy book at times seems comical, some of the fastest ways to convert people are through humor. Although I know, some followers of other religions may consider this a false religion, me personally as a devot follower, think other wise, and when given the choice always put down follower of the FSM on religion based surveys or the like. I humbly ask that this religion no longer be considered to be not real. After all who are you fellow editors to question weather or religion is "real" or not, just because, you have diffrent religious belifs. I suppose all I am saying is stay neutruel, suspend your disbelief, and simply site FSMism for what it is, a religion.
( Codemartin 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC))
I am not pretending anything. I belive with my entire being the FSM is real, and is a god. Thus why is this so hard to belive.
I am sorry for a people who belive I was attacking any religion that was not the case. I simply wished to state that, I humbly belive that I belive that FSMism should not be considered "fake" or "untrue", that is all. After all one persons laugh, is another persons holy text.
While I appreciate & enjoy FSM as much as anyone here, I think it's bordering on POV to have a remark in the article pleading with editors not to "hurt" the FSM movement. A better warning would be "for the sake of the encyclopedia, do not misrepresent FSM by portraying it as a serious religion". Not to be blunt, but we're here to make a fair and neutral encyclopedia, not specifically to protect FSM from its detractors. Of course, protecting the article from vandals is good work. But let's not cross the line into advocacy. It wouldn't be appropriate. Kasreyn 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Discuss the merge of the
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster into
Flying Spaghetti Monster here. --
JoeBlowfromKokomo
02:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I withdrawed the merge. Someone who has read the book seriously needs to expand The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, though. -- JoeBlowfromKokomo 23:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Started: /Archive 01#keep an open mind
Isn't it POV to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fictional? Do the God, Allah or Jesus articles start off by calling them fictional? -- Jamiem
FSM is not mentioned on Wikipedia because it is a religion with actual followers. It is listed because it is an interesting internet phenomenon. It has no followers, though there are people, followers if you will, who are in on the joke. It is notable because it is a phenomenon, not because it is a religion. Any first paragraph that claims FSM is an actual religion is kidding itself. -- Ec5618 11:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
There is an ongoing edit war over the use of the word "fictional" in this article. This is very sad. This article is of very poor quality, the section on "Beliefs" is pure fancruft. Please invest your energy in more worthy pursuits. Shoehorn 02:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Whatever happens to the word fake in the introduction, I felt like reminding you that the whole point of FSM was to prove the point that evidence isn't needed for something to be real (a la creationism, of course). I suppose in the same way, Scientology is equally fake, since Mr. Hubbard clearly stated that he wanted to create a religion to make money and get power - not to mention the highly satirical nature and subject matter of his novels. - Drrngrvy 03:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I would categorize myself as a pastafarian after looking into many religons. I like the fact that there is no
and with FSM you can
Anyway - there are real FSM believers out there
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by andman8 ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 December 2005).
Aside from Discordia's whole post-modern can't-tell-if-its-belief-or-not, we also know that many many practicing Anglican Priests & Jewish rabbis do not bellieve in god at all. So religion is not just about "mindless christian belief". For many people, its about culture, or less radical forms of belief. Even in the U.S., how many christians don't believe in god, but believe that belief in god is healthy for society? andman8's "believe in something fun" isn't really very different from most of the reasons I've ever heard for true non-christians converting to christianity, although intra-christian evangelical conversions are usually something considerably less rational. JeffBurdges 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Auther Douglas Adams wrote of dozens of religions in his Hitchhiker's Guide and Dirk Gently books. If what some of you are saying is true, then logic works something like this: Douglas wrote into being 20+ true religions. Each one is sacred and as such is protected from scrutiny and being labled as fiction. Adams died an activist athist and will be suprised to dicover this irony when he gets to one of his newly invented heavens. We are able to say that Adam's religions were fiction because we know the man and the work. We are able to do the same with this author and his work. It is a fool's folly to invest in this unless you can make big bucks from it. There is no other gain to be had of it other than how it was intended; a great big middle finger at world religions and academia politics. <yawn> I bored now. You had your 15 minutes of "fame".
About half of those Americans who question unguided evolution are Creationists who reject the fossil record, and the other half believe in something akin to Intelligent Design (which regards the fossil record as authentic).
It's generally accepted that ID is part of a strategy to promote Creationism. But idea that God created the fossils as false clues, however, is not part of ID. Even those ID adherents who identify the Intelligent Designer as God don't say this.
On the other hand, FSM was created to make certain arguments, and one of its arguments might be that ID *is* Creationism and that all schools of thought with Creationism are one and the same. That is, FSM (or the campaign it supports) might regard all Evolution opponents as having identical (even regimented) beliefs.
If so, how can we describe their view of their opponents accurately and fairly?
We need a policy on Wikipedia:describing POV about opposing POV. Uncle Ed 15:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Just a little minor NPOV note here: Young Earth Creationists don't nessicarily reject the "fossil record" they reject the dates that evolutionists attribute to the fossil record, and the methods used to find them. -- Nerd42 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
So, still think that ID creationists don't dispute the fossil record? — Dunc| ☺ 21:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sold, FSM is a more well designed parody then I had realized. And this whole section of the talk page is silly. Thanks. :) JeffBurdges 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I was redirected from "Flying Spaghetti Monster" - was it decided that an article on the monster itself is not warranted? -- jp3z 19:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
This component of the theory highlights the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation.
Isn't that somewhat redundent and uninformitive? I wonder what is really ment by this? Mike92591 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation_(logical_fallacy)
Just because you don't understand something yet doesn't mean it's nonsense. 24.22.58.51 10:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Pirates have been making a comeback in 2005 and 2006. The majority of the pirate activity (at least the most newsworthy pirate activity) seems confined to Africa. -- 70.189.120.111 13:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Hasn't the number of pirates been increasing since the advent of the original Napster and other peer-to-peer file sharing systems, whose architectures encourage widespread copyright infringement? -- Damian Yerrick 03:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Them's arrrren't real priates, matey. Them's are college kids who don't want to pay for things they have access to illegally. In the strictest religious sense, read 'pirates' as 'buccaneers.' Shaggorama 22:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[[
I am a pirate!!! We are alive and well!!!]]
But I don wanna be a pirate!
you don't have to be, just convert your friends! katkat 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There's a graph of the decline in pirate numbers on the site http://www.venganza.org/ Feral Mutant 19:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I read about the pirate fish. What is it?
Do you support creating a separate article for His Noodly Appendage the Flying Spaghetti Monster? -- Revolución ( talk) 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
and it rools!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Silence, -ism is only implied for religions which are notable by virtue of having followers. FSM has followers, but thats not why its notable. Our title should lie closer to the source of the notoriety. Also, if both titles redirect to the same page, then google hits are a reason to choose the title.
Finally, I see nothing wrong with giving His Noodly Appendage its own article, as long as its more than just a stub. But all I see here is discussion of the obvious joke, i.e. that christians are noodly for thinking that a god guides everything. If you want to go build a giant noodle to hang off an office building in NYC, and help guide anything below, then I think we might have a case for a His Noodly Appendage article. :) JeffBurdges 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
"Sorry, but why is this content any more like a 'joke' than any other religion?"
If you were to make a "church of the flying spaghetti monster," you would have to pay taxes for the land and on all the donations you would recieve, and it would not be considered a real religion. However, you could somehow get enough people to say they are "pastafarians" in the next census, then it would be a true religion.
I want someone to try that!
katkat
21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have rewritten the opening paragraph and deleted large amounts of this article as it is fancruft, and therefore not encyclopedic. Shoehorn 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
My only problem is that most of these facts are officially included in the FSM "doctrine" by Henderson. I wouldn't call it fancruft, maybe just too many useless facts in the article. - Stoph 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call any of the deleted beliefs fancruft, but you may be right that the facts are useless, although it's not hurting anyone to learn a little more about us Pastafarians! Anyway, most of the beliefs (if not all) are backed by Bobby Henderson.- Mightyhog 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article remain NPOV? The wording is harsh to those who believe in the religion. - WAZAAAA 01:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
"The "followers" of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are called Pastafarians. Pastafarians occasionally describe FSM as a real religion, though this somewhat negates the original intent of parodying intelligent design."
I felt this was in the interest as neutral point of view, as the following of FSM is no more or less real than the following of any other deity. Pastafarians beliefs are different only because they KNOW that their god is fake, as, they believe, are all deities. ( Pygmypony 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC))
If supporters of a religious belief consider it a religion then one must extend the common courtesy of considering it a religion even if you do not share in those beliefs. I don’t go around saying that beliefs that I don’t believe in are not actual religions. In the United States every religion is legally equal under the law regardless of the numbers of people that practice it. Legally in the US FSM is just as valid as being a Baptist.
To deny it’s status as a religion is religious discrimination.
That is why the FSM is a religion. -- 8bitJake 18:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
If one person believes it and there are, then it is a legal religion. The origins of the faith is moot and does not matter. Why are you imposing your religious belief on this and discriminating against the FSM religion? -- 8bitJake 20:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
the religion was started in 2005, and there are already over 3300 members registered on the forum at the official site [2] (and thats just registered forum users, not all followers), so if this religion has gained over 3300 followers in one year alone, isn't that faster than other major religions started growing? if anything, they started with a considerably smaller number of followers in their first years. the way things are going, it looks like this religion will eventually have larger followings than others.
dictionary.com defines religion as "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." isn't that EXACTLY what flying spaghetti monsterism is? isn't that EXACTLY what almost every other major religion is? i say we classify this religion as a parody or satirical religion if anybody can prove to me that their religious leader is real and fsm isn't. Jaybenad 23:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Are we going to have to lock this page? I'm getting tired of people flipping it back and forth from satire to religion. - sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006
How dare you insult by belief system! This is as real a religion as others. Your assignment is completely subjective and discriminatory. Just because it is nascent and you think it's a joke doesn't mean you can force your views on others. I intend to keep categorizing it back to monotheism. Beware the noodly appendage! User:Mxpule
I am amazed, as a follower of the FSM I do belive it is serious, on every survey that asks religion by name, I put it down, my boss knows I am a Pastafarian, all my friends do, I have converted several of them, I belive that all thou you not belive it is serious many other people do. Codemartin
The folowing text
"Pastafarians have faced religious discrimination against their religion by having their beliefs classified as a satire on the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia."
Should be included because to call people's faith a satire is discrimination against their legally protected religious beliefs. It is not a joke it is not satire. It is not up to you to call it that. Should all articles about religion have disclaimers calling them satire and fictional? -- 8bitJake 23:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
There are people that will claim the FSM as their religion thus it is a religion regardless of the possible intentions of the prophet of the FSM religion. It is not ours to judge what is and is not a religion. -- 8bitJake 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
There are people that believe it and are willing to claim it is their religion. Thus it is a religion. You don't need to prove faith. That is what makes it faith. -- 8bitJake 00:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
"no-one believes in FSM" That is not true.
"What is the point of this little exercise?" It is not up to you or anyone to say what is not a religion. -- 8bitJake 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The entire tone of the article indicates that FSM is nothing but a satire. 8bitJake has failed to make note of this, or make edits to address this position, which takes away most of the credibility of his allegations. Shoehorn 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
That is a moot point. There are people that believe FSM as a religious belief and that makes it a religion. Come on this is not rocket science. -- 8bitJake 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps : {{ Suggestprotect}} -- Ec5618 02:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Just Google "Flying Spaghetti Monster"... this is what you get:
"Satirical critique of the intention of the Kansas school board to teach intelligent design in schools as an alternative theory to evolution."
That's the link to the original site, www.venganza.org. what's the first word? SATIRICAL!!!! - sparsefarce 27 Jan 2006
To me, trying to call FSM an actual religion is breaking Wikipedia:No original research. Just because a tiny amount of people believe something, doesn't mean we want to include it. What are your sources for saying FSM is notable as an actual practiced religion?
Also, restated: Most people realize the true value of FSM is its satirical value. To treat it like a real religion actually goes against everything FSM stands for. - Stoph 06:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The canonization of Christianity goes against everything that Jesus stood for.
I am not sure if I would consider following the FSM for religious purposes goes againt the FSM. Seems a contradiction in terms. Sure its commical at times, but one ofthe fastest way to convert people is through humor. I and many people I know follow the FSM as a religion. What do you mean by sources? Lists of people who worship? Signatures perhaps? Hmm... The FSM is as real as any other religion.-- Codemartin 14:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to Wikipedia displaying cartoons of the Flying Spaghetti Monster on this page. According to the teachings of Pastafarianism any depiction of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is to be considered blasphemy. I demand that the cartoons be taken off the page immediately, or I will boycot Kansas, or something. Eixo 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I vote for the creation of a poll on the matter. Or maybe three or four polls. Maprieto 12:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I'm an administrator on the Flying Spaghetti monster forums, and I can confidently say that you, Eixo, are utterly wrong. Such depictions are by no means forbidden. --Alpaca
Hi there schizm guys. Still coasting on Bobby's work? We're not monolithic, but we're not idiotic either so, please, please be careful with the Word of His Noodlyness, as our faith does teach tolerance and kindness. If yours doesn't, please don't presume to be a part of the myriad Pasta-based religions. He's not that kind of deity. Auntie Dee Dee 05:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
You can always start a jihad! Or alternatively you can start a protest againist the cartoon or protest with the those againist the Mohammed cartoons. Pseudoanonymous 05:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
His divine self controls our movements through his noodly appendage, therefore, any cartoon or other artistic measure, no matter how obsurd, was, in fact, drawn by Him. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has a great sence of humour.
As a christian, I can honestly say, this about the funniest damn thing I have ever seen. I'm a little astounded that there is so much genuine debate and concern about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People seem to be overanalyizing (and missing) the joke. Slimdavey 20:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)slimdavey
This article currently has some. Compare:
The former actually states what the article's subject is: the central figure of a satiric parody religion. The latter utterly fails to in any way address, describe, or explain what the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" actually is in the introductory paragraphs (beyond alluding to its being "the subject of a satirical website", which leaves open the question of whether it's a boat, a rare species of newt, the Prime Minister of Canada, a small asteroid, etc. that's serving as this "subject"), making the entire article useless to anyone who doesn't already know about FSM (i.e. the article's currently geared toward the editors, not the readers). This article is about the Flying Spaghetti Monster—it is not about Bobby Henderson's satirical website, which is only mentioned because of its relevance to the article's subject, not because the website itself is the subject. Ergo the first thing that must be explained is what FSM is (just as the first thing Invisible Pink Unicorn explains is what the IPU is, rather than immediately going into an explanation of its history on Usenet, etc.), not the site where it was popularized!
The last time I came to this article, it did a pretty nice job of explaining right off the bat what the topic was: "The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a fictional supernatural Creator entity bearing a resemblance to spaghetti and meatballs that serves as the central figure of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, a satirical parody religion invented to protest the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to require the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to biological evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster was invented in mid-2005 by U.S. physics major Bobby Henderson and soon became the center of an Internet phenomenon, with followers often calling themselves "Pastafarians" as a play on the Rastafarians." Since then, much of the real content of the article seems to have been slowly drained out by PC-hungry pseudoPastafarians seeking to make a point about FSM being no less of a real "religion" than other religions—a point which, even if true, should be made in other places, not on Wikipedia, where there is a strict ban on original research of this sort. - Silence 22:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a sentence in the introduction saying that, logically speaking, FSMism is a reductio ad absurdum? Why was this removed? It's neutral, correct, and provides a deeper understanding into the topic. Discuss.loodog 66.240.10.170 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How FSM works: Create a completely silly "religion". Show how the reasoning behind the silly "religion" and the reasoning behind ID are very similar. Thereby showing that the reasoning behind ID can "prove" the silly "religion", hence showing the reasoning is suspect.
It is the very *point* of FSM to be silly. Silliness is absolutely essential. If it is non-silly then the comparison of ID and obvious silliness disappear.
Please do not undermine the very purpose of FSM by pretending it is somehow serious or real. You are doing a great disservice to FSM.
If you wish to expand on the silliness by all means please do so, but not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for that. Wikipedia is about reality; a person should be able to come here and find out the reality behind FSM. One place for contributing in the true spirit of FSM is the Uncyclopedia. — Weregerbil 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"FSM is a fictional deity"? Well, what if you believe, as I do, that all deities are fictional? *Dan T.* 04:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Although "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" was created as a parody religion, Pastafarians say it is a legitimate one; some argue that the FSM is no more or less fictional than any other deity.
Anybody remember the Jedi census phenomenon? Religion centers on belief. It has nothing to do with politics in most countries, excepting those which follow religious values and interpret them as law.
Don't revert my comments this time, please. - Corbin Be excellent 03:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=the_pastafarians_speak&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
I thought Pastor, but they already exist in Christianity. Anyone know?
Pasta--leader of a congregation Bishop--oversees several congregations within a geographic area ArchBishop--for when there are more groups that the Bishops alone can deal with Pastriarch--Head of the Pastfarian church in a country. Very large countries may have Vice Pastriarchs - VetteDude 00:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the comments above, it is obvious that there is a dispute on this article's state of NPOV. It cannot be said that there is no dispute, because people are writing here that they do dispute that the article is NPOV, and others are posting that they dispute that the article is NOT NPOV.
I mean, two sides holding different sides of an argument is obviously classified as a dispute.
Regardless as to if you feel this article is NPOV or not, please realize that there it IS under dispute. Guspaz 17:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Wow, check out this letter, really puts down all those Pastafarians believe, eh?:
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2005/09/15/the_church_of_the_flying_spaghetti_monst
199.111.88.238 13:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the book has already been released (I have my copy on hand) I'm going to create an article about the Gospels of FSM. Any assistance you are willing to offer would be greatly appreciated. Link to the article: The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster The Fading Light 5:53, 1 April 2006
Hey, I changed it around a bit to bring out the "religion" part in the first sentence, which people were hiding under all the talk about Boby. However, I did this by making religion into a link to parody religion which people may also object to. I also tried to point out that the Pastafarian position is really completely consistent with one of the major themes in modern (heh) literary thought. JeffBurdges 22:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, why is the article now soo short? It used to have tons of good stuff! Was there a fork? Content ought to have been easily sourceable since its all on the internet. JeffBurdges 22:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
What is up with this FSM meatballs=meat of Judeo-Christian God stuff? And the Nietzche quote? I have never heard of any of this and I frequent the FSM site...It wasn't within 3 edits of most recent (as far as my quick check found), so I was wondering if this is just something that needs to be reverted? - VetteDude 00:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
FSM, along with Church of the Subgenious, seem to be the most evangalistic parody religions. It'd be good to have a section on it, I'm sure you can get lots of photos of people in pirate costumes standing on streat corners. Thoughts? JeffBurdges 14:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this one would make a fine featured article. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 16:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This is without question, the best article on Wikipedia.... haha... EZZIE 22:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
MERLINUS FEEDBACK OK, Your for real! All the best to you. I tend to beleive in Creative Atheism myself. In it there is a God, but he doesn't beleive in himself unless he sees his shrink and looks in the mirror and says: "Gosh Darn it... I like myself." I'm also old enough not to believe in dating... unless its done with Carbon Dating! My Words of Wisdom from a self declared fool who Advises"Don't listen to Me" -- merlinus 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Merlinus-- merlinus 19:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I own the "Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster", could I add a bit to the “belief” section without someone coming in behind me and erasing the entry.
-- BarnhouseEffect 22:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The citation numbers currently don't work. Shawnc 01:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html with an order of magnitude of 10-32
Yo. I'd like to see this reach GA status, mostly to tick a handful of pretentious kids that sit across from me in Theory of Knowledge class. Anyway, here's what has to happen, in my opinion:
Who's with me? - Corbin Be excellent 03:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Religion
Who indeed on wikipedia, has the right to call this religion "fake" or a "paradoy" as a follower of the FSM religion, I belive that this should not be considered "fake". Althogh our holy book at times seems comical, some of the fastest ways to convert people are through humor. Although I know, some followers of other religions may consider this a false religion, me personally as a devot follower, think other wise, and when given the choice always put down follower of the FSM on religion based surveys or the like. I humbly ask that this religion no longer be considered to be not real. After all who are you fellow editors to question weather or religion is "real" or not, just because, you have diffrent religious belifs. I suppose all I am saying is stay neutruel, suspend your disbelief, and simply site FSMism for what it is, a religion.
( Codemartin 22:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC))
I am not pretending anything. I belive with my entire being the FSM is real, and is a god. Thus why is this so hard to belive.
I am sorry for a people who belive I was attacking any religion that was not the case. I simply wished to state that, I humbly belive that I belive that FSMism should not be considered "fake" or "untrue", that is all. After all one persons laugh, is another persons holy text.
While I appreciate & enjoy FSM as much as anyone here, I think it's bordering on POV to have a remark in the article pleading with editors not to "hurt" the FSM movement. A better warning would be "for the sake of the encyclopedia, do not misrepresent FSM by portraying it as a serious religion". Not to be blunt, but we're here to make a fair and neutral encyclopedia, not specifically to protect FSM from its detractors. Of course, protecting the article from vandals is good work. But let's not cross the line into advocacy. It wouldn't be appropriate. Kasreyn 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)