The purpose and utility of Pastafarianism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

In this thread I’m going to explore the underlying purpose of Pastafarianism and how to utilize it in arguments with religious people. I will be completely serious in this thread (as serious as one can be about Pastafarianism or indeed any religion at all), so I won’t be making jokes and claiming I actually believe in it – of course I don’t. But, I do seriously think it has philosophical merit and is of great use when arguing theists regarding certain issues, and that I am willing to defend. Also, I do think it is possible to sincerely believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster – I think that if people were indoctrinated to believe it from early childhood, like it’s the case with other religions, it would be perfectly possible to firmly believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It was conceived by Bobby Henderson and its initial purpose was that of a counter argument to creationist claims that schools should teach unscientific theories in classroom alongside science.However, the idea grew on people and its usage extended beyond what it was originally meant for. It became a comical representation of everything wrong with theism. Pastafarianism went on to prove that literally anything, no matter how silly it is, can become a religion if enough people support it. It managed, at least to a certain extent, to show theists how theism is sometimes perceived by atheists and allow theists to understand how atheists sometimes feel while arguing with them – that, of course, manifests differently in different theists. Some will recognize the silliness of it all, others will stay in denial and become infuriated.

I will address only one criticism (if you could call it that) of Pastafarianism in my OP because I find it to be the most common, it goes something along the lines of:

‘But it is obvious that there is no such thing as Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s insulting to even compare it to the theistic God of Christianity/Islam/etc.’

You can see now why I questioned if it is deserving of being called criticism. It’s an appeal to emotion and it ignores the (possible) metaphorical meaning, assuming it would literally have to be made of spaghetti, meatballs and sauce. It’s almost as ignorant as people who think most Christians now think of God as a bearded man in sky, but at least that’s based on the fact that hundreds of years ago, people really did believe in such a God.

Also, it brings up another interesting philosophical question to ponder: Is there a point when one is justified in proclaiming a philosophical concept or a position unworthy of serious contemplation after learning only its essence, the basics? If we seek the truth, should we therefore ignore the possibility of the FSM existing due to perceiving it as extremely improbable, or should we explore the concept of it in depth before making the decision about its existence? I made a thread separate for that in The Sandbox section if anybody is interested, here I’m concerned with how the implications of it affect FSM and theism generally. If one decides to reject FSM on face value, how can that same person then consistently expect other people to seriously contemplate their idea of God and not reject it on face value?

I’ll later post its utility in arguments relating theism and indeed religion overall.

2

How the hell would spaghetti gain sentient status??? Is it boiled or is it still stiff? If said monster exists would it not break if uncooked and if cooked how could it not rot or fall apart? Why are not birds eating it?

3

The original “Spaghetti Monster” was metaphor for the secret society type of god using a CIA type of order to arrange total control over the world. The tentacles (often used throughout ancient mythology depictions along with “hair”) were the “noodles”. The “monster” has always referred to a "mon-olithic creature formed of separate parts, as in “Frankenstein’s (a word meaning a gathering of the parts) monster”.

So in the real world, to believe in the “Spaghetti Monster” is to believe that there is a higher governing secret order controlling your world, a “god”. Such has been the highest priority and ambition of the Hebrew and Jews for thousands of years. Today the formation of Solomon’s temple (of power through money, Satanism) is entirely for that purpose. As they say, “We SHALL be gods!!”.

…and interestingly, “birds” DO at times “eat” the “noodles”. :wink:

4

:slight_smile: Thanks James, :slight_smile: Learn something new everyday.
Ramen noodle monster would be more appropriate in that case.

5

That would be the MSS (Ministry of State Security - Chinese version of a secret national security agency).
The USA actually has 7 distinct secret security agencies (not to mention all of the secret Orders). That makes it more like a Veggie-Pasta Franken-Monster.

And if you don’t believe in the VPFM, just go out in public anywhere in the West and do anything counter-homeland-security - beware the invisible monsters that fly through the night. :evilfun:

The Christians have more of an angel-hair pasta. [-o<

Pasta-farian.
Hmm… :-k
…wasn’t that supposed to be Rastafari after emperor Haili Sallasie of Ethiopia claiming to be God?

… and that is why women in Islam have to cover their mouths and bind themselves. :-$
8-[

6

It’s a metaphor! Why are you taking my religious beliefs out of context?

7

She is reading it literally. She has to do that otherwise it contains no truth value by definition. Remember? :smiley:

8

I’m glad we’re finally on the same page :wink:

But yeah, the point is that FSM can just as easily be argued to be a metaphor as a Christian could argue anything from the Bible is a metaphor. It’s mean to undermine the Christian arguments and have them concede ridiculous stuff if they want to stay consistent.

Even taken literally, one could argue that humans perceive FSM as spaghetti, meatballs and sauce from the outside, but its actually a super advanced organism which merely resembles the meal we have on earth, or, more accurately, the meal resembles him since its his holy meal given to us by his noodliness.

9

Are we too stuck on the assertion that there’s a particular entity out there named God? Seems to me that God takes on numerous physical forms throughout Biblical scripture at least, forms that, for a time, house ‘God’ and are the source of wisdom. A burning bush. A breeze. A temple. A storm. A human being…

So why not an FSM?

As a theist, I see nothing wrong with that. What I do see wrong, however, and where I would raise the basic criticism that you’re wanting to address, is that there is a much richer context at play in Biblical scripture than the simple assertion that such an entity exists, and that it has such and such qualities.

The FSM argument does nothing to that. Unless you start fabricating that context, and establish, not only the fact that you can imaginatively create a coherent worldview around it, but one that actually respects us as intelligent beings, motivates positive action, and gives us hope in the future, the FSM argument will only cut so deep… (And by such a worldview I don’t mean the creationist… I would say that’s about as believable as, well, any story you would craft around the FSM, no offence to your capacity as a mythologizer :slight_smile:

10

“If one decides to reject FSM on face value, how can that same person then consistently expect other people to seriously contemplate their idea of God and not reject it on face value”

First: I like the responses so far :slight_smile:
Second: Flying food in a monster form is Sesame Street. A normal god is generally an energy entity which has a scientific believablity. Flying angry food is well, like thinking Kermit the frog is real and a god. Now if you can prove Kermit is real and a god, you need to go into politics. :slight_smile:

11

Again, I could just say you’re strawmaning me because him looking like spaghetti is metaphorical. I could also claim that there is holy duality going on - that he simultaneously is spaghetti and isn’t. I can expose the silliness of Christian theology in so many different ways using FSM it’s scary.

An energy entity? Yes, the escape of some modern theists towards abstractions is something I’m very familiar with, but FSM is meant as criticism of theism, not deism, though funnily enough, theism has become so much like deism that there’s a very thin line between them now. The more we know, the more vague the God becomes, the more qualities we remove from him, seeing that there’s no evidence for them or that they’re incompatible with the world - ultimately, we’re left with no reason to believe that being at all.

The point is that Christians try to argue that what the Bible preaches, the specific, theistic God it describes, has something to do with the vague, deistic conception of it, then Pastafarians point out that, if there is such a being as God, there is no more reason to believe it is like the God of the bible than to believe that it is like the God of the Gospel of the FSM.

12

I agree with your points but, I do think that following one belief for all is a path that can be regressive. To harangue another for their beliefs is wrong, to say they do it so I can do it, is, well, downright immature and unproductive. Can you give an argument that does not demean? Its hard but, it creates truer change.

13

Entertaining the idea that pastafarianism is comparable to theism is like putting on the bottle-thick glasses of a friend to see just how bad their eyesight really is. Great insight into the stunted intellectual development of atheism these days.

14

Kriswest, so not all people should believe that 2+2=4, we should also have people believe it equals a wide array of numbers just to have what, diversity? Yeah, you’re right, fuck truth :icon-rolleyes:

Uccisore, Pastafarianism IS another variation of theism. It’s an OFFICIAL religion, like it or not. The fact that you replied as dismissively as my OP predicted tacitly supports the position that some ideas don’t deserve to be taken seriously, so you’re in fact only giving me grounds not to take Christianity seriously and reject it on face value if you reject Pastafarianism the same way.

Another fun scenario in which Pastafarianism is of great utility: Christian/Muslim/another specific theist uses the ontological/cosmological/another vague argument in favor of a deistic God and tries to argue it proves their specific theistic God, as a Pastafarian you can perfectly expose the fallacious reasoning of making such a leap by granting the entire argument for the deistic God and that it proves a specific theistic God too, but that specific theistic God being proven is FSM and not Yahweh/Allah, enjoy the ensuing fun of a theist struggling to pinpoint exactly why the God isn’t FSM but is Yahweh/Allah.

It’s actually quite pitiful that there is so much similarity to be drawn between a FSM and Yahweh, to make matters worse, one can disprove Yahweh due to contradictions in Bible, whereas FSM can’t be disproven :laughing:

15

This says more about your stunted development, than any made up religion - oh wait they are all made up!

16

Maybe you would like to say why this is wrong?

If I believe that you need to put petrol in a car to make it work , and I see a person putting water in then they need to be told.

17

Atheris, since when is proven comparable to unproven? Do you know that 2+2=4 or do you believe it does?

Lev, same with you, knowledge/fact is not belief/faith.
If someone insultingly told you a math equation is wrong, you have no emotional ties to it, so your response and mind would be fine. But if someone insultingly told you that someone you deeply love hates you, pities you etc, it would cause harm to you possibly the person who told you and the one you love.
Belief / faith is tied deeply to our emotions, our selves. Facts/knowledge is not.(well for most its not)

18

Sorry but you don’t get a pass because you believe in god. To people of reason you seem absurd. To people of reason, they see a world in conflict due to the absurdity of belief. They see people on their knees, and people bending on the floor. This is antithetical to democracy and free thinking.
It only hurts you because you are in denial of the truth. It hurts because you know that you have no leg to stand on.

But your tirade does not make sense. It is not a person whom you love that is telling you that you are wrong. It is people that simply want to put you straight on a few things.

19

Voice Out of the Wilderness did this same thread awhile back. Nothing new here. Search the flying spaghetti monster thread.

20

My tirade?
BTW, I am Atheist.
Your attack does not show reason, it shows emotion, you too hold your belief in an emotional cocoon as do most when it comes to beliefs. This is why there is animosity. You did not reason, you did not try to understand what I said. You believe me the enemy to your beloved belief so you went on emotional defensive attack.