Don't shoot me for asking this please?

Question

I've been here since Oct last year and it never occurred to me that FSM might be a real religion. I always took it as a joke.

So, is it a joke or is it a real thing?

Yeah, yeah, for someone who's been here for so long - I'm supposed to know that already

*ducks flying objects*

Answer 1

FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster for the uninitiated) isn’t the object of worship of any real religion. It is a rhetorical device used by atheists to show that the argument, propounded by theists, that we atheists cannot prove a universal negative, does not necessarily lend credence to their beliefs.

If the theist states that there is no way that one can prove that God DOES NOT exist, because you would have to claim omniscience for yourself in order to state a universal negative, the atheist retorts, using the fictional Flying Spaghetti Monster, by stating that “you cannot disprove the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster in some place in the cosmos, but that doesn’t automatically mean that you grant it legitimacy.”

With that simple analogy the atheist has decimated the theist’s charge of us having to prove a universal negative. There are many things that we cannot universally disprove,which we still hold to be quite fictional. We don’t believe that a Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, that the boogieman exists, or the tooth fairy exists, simply because those things are improbable. Atheists merely go one step further, and also include God in this list of improbable entities. The onus of proof, when it comes to establishing things that are improbable, or where no evidence can be adduced to substantiate a belief, is upon the believer, not on the disbeliever.

FSM has gone by other names in the past. Bertrand Russell, probably one of the more famous atheists in history, used the celestial teapot, as his answer to the conundrum of having to prove a universal negative. The argument, which I quote at length, is below:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Whether you use the celestial teapot analogy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster metaphor, the argument is just the same and equally devastating to the theist’s case that we atheists must prove, absolutely, the nonexistence of a deity, in order to find fault with theism.

Answer 2

Not real, but not a joke either.

It originally came up when the Kansas school board pushed the idea of teaching the Biblical Creation story in schools under the guise of "Intelligent Design". In response, the Flying Spaghetti Monster was created and pushed to also be taught in the schools.

The idea was that if one made up god could be taught in a science class, then another one could. There is zero evidence to support the idea that either the Christian god or the FSM created the world. So, if that's good enough to get the Christian god creation story taught as science, then the FSM should also be taught.

An analogous creation is the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which serves the same purpose in arguments.

Basically, it is impossible to support any claims about God that can't also be claimed about the FSM or IPU in the same way. These parodies of the Christian god really have the same basis.

Answer 3

FSM is a response to the fundamentalist thing saying that creationism should be taught in science class. And I agree completely with the FSM. I think that while creationism should be taught in school, it should not be taught in science. I think that junior high and high schools should teach comparative religions classes as an elective. Or at least teach creationism in, say, literature.

Answer 4

I see FSM as a serious stance against religion and how absurd religion can be.

I don't really believe there is a pile of spaghetti and meatballs flying around changing scientific data and punishing the world for the lack of pirates left.

Answer 5

*bang*

Dang missed. The FSM must have guided his noodle appendage to keep me from shooting you.

The FSM is not really a religion on the basis that it doesn't have churches, a real organization, or members who practice any rituals. But it is as real as any other religion when it comes to believability and logic.

Answer 6

Well, honey.

It's the effect caused by 'faith', that's all I can tell you.

And, no, please refer to EIRRYD number 2 if you're afraid that Pastafarians are going to shoot you down just because you're asking something:
2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage as well.

RAmen~!
~ Pastafarian of Love.

Answer 7

I think it is real in the valid points that it makes. Stand back and take a look at it to get the big picture.

Answer 8

It's both a joke and a real thing. Just like some other "religions" are, but don't admit it.

Answer 9

I know everybody told you but it's a parody on religion and evolution. It's funny. You should look it up. I'll see if somebody already gave you a link. Blessings

Answer 10

rebel, what's on the menu for lunch. I'm starved.

FSM = Fighting Super Mormons