Colander Hats on IDs: Legitimate Religious Statement or Atheists Acting Childish?

[Willamena]

I just hope that dude isn't trying to symbolize what he is and what he stands for.

:run:

An upside down omega.

 

[ChristineES]

Ok, them explain to me the difference?
I'm being serious here.
Why is satanism a different story?

Say someone joins the flying spaghetti monster, because they like the basic Tennant, such as the thought that any special treatment given to one religion over others should either be justified, or given to all, or simply the thought that religions shouldn't always take themselves too seriously.

If someone honestly believes in some of the "teachings" then how can you tell that person their religion should be ignored, because other people think it's silly?

What we need to do is ask what the purpose of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is. The answer means: Mockery, in my view.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

What we need to do is ask what the purpose of The Flying Spaghetti Monster is. The answer means: Mockery, in my view.

Ok, and I know people that, if I ask them why I'm am atheist, they'll tell me it's because I'm possessed by a demon.

I'm curious how much you looked into the religion before you made your decision, could you tel me what you did find while researching them?

 

[ChristineES]

Ok, and I know people that, if I ask them why I'm am atheist, they'll tell me it's because I'm possessed by a demon.

I'm curious how much you looked into the religion before you made your decision, could you tel me what you did find while researching them?

The reason I said nothing about Satanism is because I know nothing about Satanism outside of Hollywood definitions and a book (which had no facts to actually back it up, they were not about Satanism, but about a woman with DID). I am not sure what that has to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which was from South Park: I know because my son watches it regularly), which is what I was speaking of. And, for the record, I don't believe atheists to possessed by the devil.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

The reason I said nothing about Satanism is because I know nothing about Satanism outside of Hollywood definitions and a book (which had no facts to actually back it up, they were not about Satanism, but about a woman with DID). I am not sure what that has to do with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which was from South Park: I know because my son watches it regularly), which is what I was speaking of. And, for the record, I don't believe atheists to possessed by the devil.

Ah, just so you know, south park is not where it started...
It was around before that, it was initially a satire paper written to expose why creationism taught in science classesis a poor idea.

If all you know about it is from south park, you may be interested I actually looking into it, to see what it really is.

There's a lot about Jesus on south park too, but in general that show is bad place to your thoughts on a subject from, if is the only source on that subject you've seen.

 

[ChristineES]

Ah, just so you know, south park is not where it started...
It was around before that, it was initially a satire paper written to expose why creationism taught in science classesis a poor idea.

If all you know about it is from south park, you may be interested I actually looking into it, to see what it really is.

There's a lot about Jesus on south park too, but in general that show is bad place to your thoughts on a subject from, if is the only source on that subject you've seen.

Doesn't matter to me where it came from. I only heard about it on South Park. It's mockery to me, no matter what. I couldn't care less, it doesn't offend me whatsoever.

I was only speaking of people looking kind of ridiculous with colanders on their (originally) head and I was actually only being silly about the whole thing. Which is really the only thing, before responding to your post, what I was ever talking about.

 

[ChristineES]

Guys, I was having fun with this thread. I unintentionally offended someone so I will go on my merry way. I never meant to offend anyone. I just couldn't help it, after all, it's not everyday people want to be taken seriously while wearing kitchen utensils on their head.

Bye.

 

[Erebus]

Ok, them explain to me the difference?
I'm being serious here.
Why is satanism a different story?

Generally speaking a Satanist uses mockery as a tool for self improvement. A Pastafarian uses mockery to make a political statement. A Satanist lives by (or attempts to live by) the tenets of their version of Satanism. A Pastafarian pretends to live by the tenets of Pastafarianism.
Pastafarianism is a parody of a religion, Satanism is a religion that incorporates parody.

As I understand it, Pastafarianism was initially thought up as a counter to Intelligent Design and creationism being taught in schools. The idea basically being that if one person can teach something stupid as fact then anybody should be able to.
This is the crux of the criticism of the colander hats as far as I can tell. There's a valid point in pointing out favouritism and concessions made towards religious practices, but when it's done in a manner intended to point out these practices as being stupid you're going to step on some toes.

 

[LuisDantas]

Nonsense. The term looses all meaning, then.

Hardly. It is more like its very arbitrary nature becomes apparent.

Ironic that you of all people would say that, though.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Guys, I was having fun with this thread. I unintentionally offended someone so I will go on my merry way. I never meant to offend anyone. I just couldn't help it, after all, it's not everyday people want to be taken seriously while wearing kitchen utensils on their head.

Bye.

Oh, I'm certainly not offended, I know I don't always come across warm and happy in text, but that's just how I write.


No need to worry about my feelings on this one.
I hope, in return, I haven't come of as too offensive to you

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Generally speaking a Satanist uses mockery as a tool for self improvement. A Pastafarian uses mockery to make a political statement. A Satanist lives by (or attempts to live by) the tenets of their version of Satanism. A Pastafarian pretends to live by the tenets of Pastafarianism.
Pastafarianism is a parody of a religion, Satanism is a religion that incorporates parody.

As I understand it, Pastafarianism was initially thought up as a counter to Intelligent Design and creationism being taught in schools. The idea basically being that if one person can teach something stupid as fact then anybody should be able to.
This is the crux of the criticism of the colander hats as far as I can tell. There's a valid point in pointing out favouritism and concessions made towards religious practices, but when it's done in a manner intended to point out these practices as being stupid you're going to step on some toes.

That was very well written, and I agree with a majority of it!
The parts I'm curious about though, why is it only a parody mocking a religion,, and not a religion that mocks religion? Where's the deciding point for that?

Also, how can you really say pastafarians are only pretending to practice?
Here's another guy, colander on head, at his swearing in for public office..

New York Pastafarian Christopher Schaeffer Sworn Into Town Council Wearing Colander

He seems to honestly feel the idea behind pastafarianism is a good one, and I see no mockery or malice in his actions, I wish I could find the actual interview with him, but phone is phone.. :-( but he send to be a genuinely nice guy, wearing a colander because he wants to, .

Also, if I were to take the Ken hamms, and ray comforts and such, and point it that they appear to be bearing false witness about evolution, geology, and many sciences, can I say Christians only pretend to follow their commandments??
I could, but I wrong, because in don't think is a call others can make.
There could very well be honest pastafarians out there, so how can you day they're only pretending?

 

[Erebus]

That was very well written, and I agree with a majority of it!

Thank you

The parts I'm curious about though, why is it only a parody mocking a religion,, and not a religion that mocks religion? Where's the deciding point for that?

Also, how can you really say pastafarians are only pretending to practice?
Here's another guy, colander on head, at his swearing in for public office..

New York Pastafarian Christopher Schaeffer Sworn Into Town Council Wearing Colander

He seems to honestly feel the idea behind pastafarianism is a good one, and I see no mockery or malice in his actions, I wish I could find the actual interview with him, but phone is phone.. :-( but he send to be a genuinely nice guy, wearing a colander because he wants to, .

Also, if I were to take the Ken hamms, and ray comforts and such, and point it that they appear to be bearing false witness about evolution, geology, and many sciences, can I say Christians only pretend to follow their commandments??
I could, but I wrong, because in don't think is a call others can make.
There could very well be honest pastafarians out there, so how can you day they're only pretending?

This is why I said "generally speaking" I'm not a fan of dealing with absolutes. Ultimately I would say the line between religion and parody is best determined by intent. If somebody genuinely feels that Pastafarianism is a religion they want to follow, if it matters to them and becomes more than just a bit of fun then who am I to tell them that's not their religion? Equally, I suspect that a number of televangelists don't really believe what they preach.

Now having said this, Pastafarianism is designed in such a way that it appeals to people looking to have a laugh at religion. It's deliberately silly. As such, i don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that those who treat it as a serious religion are in the minority. By extension it's not unreasonable to assume that when somebody claims Pastafarianism as their religion, they're probably taking the mick.

 

[oldbadger]

I just hope that dude isn't trying to symbolize what he is and what he stands for.

:run:

Of course he is!
You know nuffin'.
That there bloke is a 13th Arch member of the most ancient and honourable order of bog-fellows. Please note the 'honourable' in there before you show any disrespect! (damnation..... cuss..... spit)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Belief in any of it by its followers.

Actually, I've met a few Pastafarians who believed. Not in a literal "flying spaghetti monster in the sky" sense, but in a sense similar to many liberal Christians.

 

[Willamena]

That was very well written, and I agree with a majority of it!
The parts I'm curious about though, why is it only a parody mocking a religion,, and not a religion that mocks religion? Where's the deciding point for that?

The deciding point was in 2005 when Bobby Henderson decided to write an open letter to the Kansas School Board. If you want to belittle his work as religion rather than uphold it in its parody, you're free to do that.

Also, how can you really say pastafarians are only pretending to practice?
Here's another guy, colander on head, at his swearing in for public office..

New York Pastafarian Christopher Schaeffer Sworn Into Town Council Wearing Colander

He seems to honestly feel the idea behind pastafarianism is a good one, and I see no mockery or malice in his actions, I wish I could find the actual interview with him, but phone is phone.. :-( but he send to be a genuinely nice guy, wearing a colander because he wants to, .

And that's good parody of religion. As long as the practice of parody is the practice of Pastafarianism, I'm with you.

Also, if I were to take the Ken hamms, and ray comforts and such, and point it that they appear to be bearing false witness about evolution, geology, and many sciences, can I say Christians only pretend to follow their commandments??
I could, but I wrong, because in don't think is a call others can make.
There could very well be honest pastafarians out there, so how can you day they're only pretending?

It's a call I can make.

 

[Willamena]

Ok, them explain to me the difference?
I'm being serious here.
Why is satanism a different story?

It's not so much a difference that needs to be explained as a red herring that needs to be explained. The topic belongs to the Pastaman, not the Satanist.

Satanism has a metaphysics as its strength, Pastafarianism has parody as its.

Say someone joins the flying spaghetti monster, because they like the basic Tennant, such as the thought that any special treatment given to one religion over others should either be justified, or given to all, or simply the thought that religions shouldn't always take themselves too seriously.

If someone honestly believes in some of the "teachings" then how can you tell that person their religion should be ignored, because other people think it's silly?

Does believing in accord with the teachings make for a religion? Or does it make for believing in accord with the teachings?

 

[ChristineES]

Of course he is!
You know nuffin'.
That there bloke is a 13th Arch member of the most ancient and honourable order of bog-fellows. Please note the 'honourable' in there before you show any disrespect! (damnation..... cuss..... spit)

Ha ha. People can do what they want and wear what they want (within the law) And there are a lot of things I would rather know "nuffin'" about.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ha ha. People can do what they want and wear what they want (within the law) And there are a lot of things I would rather know "nuffin'" about.

He's more formal than most of us...

 

[Sir Doom]

I trust we believe in the FSM and its necessary role for the betterment of society better than many nominal followers of Judaism, Shinto or Catholicism do in the supposed deities of their faiths.

Define 'better than' and 'nominal' in this context.

The belief that rights given to one religion should be given to any and all other religions equally?
I would think that most Pastafarians have that.

That's a fine political position to have.

Or is it the lack of a literal FSM that makes it not a religion, like non theistic satanism, and how that's not a real religion, then...

Its not a religion because that would defeat the entire purpose. There is no movement to get the flying spaghetti monster included in scientific texts, yet that is exactly the purpose of the being's existence. Its a gag. You aren't supposed to take it seriously. That there happens to be a group that has taken this idea as a figure head to combat legislation that tries to get creationism included in science does not suddenly transform that group into a religion. Its a political organization with a clever mascot.

PS: There's nothing wrong with that.

Actually, I've met a few Pastafarians who believed. Not in a literal "flying spaghetti monster in the sky" sense, but in a sense similar to many liberal Christians.

What that his teachings are good regardless of his voracity?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My question was serious. Why can someone who in jest wear a colander for their ID when I cannot wear my glasses? What really has society come to?