Any PASTAFARIS out there?

[Dingfelder]

Well, this is the off-topic forum, so of course we don't have to talk EUC right here.

There is no particular overlap of SJW and Pastafarian.

I saw that somewhere in Europe, Pastafarians have been able to have that listed as their religion on official state documents.  Pretty funny IMO.

My brother loves that stuff.  I think it's at least as credible as being a Jedi.

Anyway, sticks in the mud gonna stick in the mud ... OP, don't let 'em get ya down.  You have as much right to your religion as anyone else has to theirs.  And at least I haven't seen Pastafarians asking anyone for money or to bomb anything or stick their commandments in courthouses.

[Alex_from_NZ]

On 11/7/2018 at 5:45 PM, travsformation said:

I'm perfectly happy with the Pastafarian brush, but I think what you meant to say was "I will paint you according to the lense I choose to see you through". Not the same thing....  

Because I love playing devil's advocate.. 

If you were happy with the Pastafarian brush, I don't think you would of found yourself defensive of my painting ?

But again I disagree, why do you consider yourself a Pastafarian?

The 'religion' teaches that your God is a flying spaghetti monster, chosen because of the ridiculous notion in an effort to bring light to, what its members believe is, an equally ridiculous notion of there being an actual God. The entire premise is to poke fun at other people for having religious beliefs.

This isn't the lens I'm seeing it through, this is what the group is. 

But what really gets my gears going (kidding) is the ones who use it at an excuse to force their way, and with it their mockery, into other peoples everyday public lives.

I get it, you think its unfair that Abraham gets to wear some cool jewellery at school under religious tolerance laws.. but is it really cool to force the school to let you wear a colander as a hat in class so you can turn your nose up at his beliefs? You know that shits disruptive and shines a spot light unfairly on Abraham as well..

I'm not saying that's what you do, but this is what your group does and is one of its purposes in trying to be defined as an actual religion. And frankly is a bit of a dick move when all he's doing is wearing a old school hat or some necklace or something to feel comfortable. 

But I'm not really annoyed or upset, I just enjoy a good argument ??

P.S , I'm not religious, so don't think I'm defending the church or anything. 

[travsformation]

9 hours ago, Dingfelder said:

Well, this is the off-topic forum, so of course we don't have to talk EUC right here.

 (allthough a moderator did have to move it here, I initially posted it in "general discussion"  )

9 hours ago, Dingfelder said:

I saw that somewhere in Europe, Pastafarians have been able to have that listed as their religion on official state documents.  Pretty funny IMO.

My brother loves that stuff.  I think it's at least as credible as being a Jedi.

Hahaha yeah, people have been able to get their driver's license with a colander on their head in Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Czech Republic, Texas, Utah and Massachusetts 

Aside from being hilarious, it's a way of questioning what gives one person the right to wear religious headwear but not another. Why can a muslim wear a headscarf but a Pastafari can't wear a colander or a Jedi can't wear a robe? Furthermore, it's meant to question why certain belief systems are socially accepted as valid, and why others aren't. And what defines a religion in the first place...If it's a belief system, a book outlining it, headwear and devout followers, Pastafarianism should qualify. As should many others...the point being, there is a certain social justice component to it in terms of equal treatment for all belief systems. Some might think it's "SJW without a cause", I think we're in the year 2018 and getting over certain religious privileges that have been in place for thousands of years is way overdue 

9 hours ago, Dingfelder said:

Anyway, sticks in the mud gonna stick in the mud ... OP, don't let 'em get ya down.  You have as much right to your religion as anyone else has to theirs.  And at least I haven't seen Pastafarians asking anyone for money or to bomb anything or stick their commandments in courthouses.

R'Amen to that! With all the wars and death mainstream religions have been responsible for over the millennia (crusades, inquisition, muslim invasions, terrorism) I hardly see Pastafarianism as much of a threat to anyone.... 

[Mono]

11 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

P.S , I'm not religious, so don't think I'm defending the church or anything. 

You seem to (harshly) criticize those who attack or mock or make fun of religion or religious beliefs. That is, you seem to say that they do not have good reasons for their attack. That looks like defending religion to me.

I guess it goes back to the same old question: should an attack on a belief be considered as an attack on a person holding this belief. But if so, how could you attack beliefs at all?

[travsformation]

 

16 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

If you were happy with the Pastafarian brush, I don't think you would of found yourself defensive of my painting ?

I wasn't being defensive. My reply was a counter-argument meant to expose what I perceive as a fallacy in your reasoning. Simply stating "You will be painted with the brush you decide to run with" doesn't make it so. Or in the words of The Dude, "That's just, like, your opinion, man" 

The "You will be painted [...]" statement reflects more on you than it does on me. The notion of having to paint me in the first place is a choice that you make. Why do I need to be painted at all? Why does anyone? Why do you feel you need to paint people? And if you have to paint everyone you come across....that sounds like an awful lot of work... (Sidenote: paint ain't cheap. And even if you're getting great discounts, it always costs something) 

16 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

But again I disagree, why do you consider yourself a Pastafarian?

Because it's a very well thought-out critique of religion: It has a belief system, a book that collects said beliefs (The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), a version of the ten commandments (The 8 I'd rather You Didnt's), a faith-based God whose existence can't be proven or disproven, a story of creation, a theory on the afterlife,  religious attire (colander and pirate-related garments), a founder ,and followers. Same components as Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but different tenets. The point being: who's to say which one's valid and which one isn't? That kind of playful and well-developed critique appeals to me, and if I were to take religion seriously and hypothetically had to choose a religion (and the afterlife it promises), Pastafarianism would be at the top of my list, waaaay ahead of all mainstream religions. But I'll let this introductory video explain why for me:

 

(If it didn't make you laugh, or at least smile, you really need to lighten up...)

16 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

The 'religion' teaches that your God is a flying spaghetti monster, chosen because of the ridiculous notion in an effort to bring light to, what its members believe is, an equally ridiculous notion of there being an actual God. The entire premise is to poke fun at other people for having religious beliefs.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up  (except for the fact we ridicule religion, not people. But then again, there's the age-old question that @Mono brought up about whether there's a distinction or not, and whether a (non-tangible) belief system can even be attacked in the first place)

In any case, I don't know what PERSONAL experience you've had with Pastafarians, but possibly excluding New Zealand, we tend to keep to ourselves. Contrary to what you may think, we don't go around criticizing other people for their faith (at least I don't, nor do any of the Pastafarians I know) we just joke around about it among ourselves. I don't really see the harm in that. There's a difference between adhering to (or humorously pretending to believe in) a mock religion, and walking into a Church and mocking people's beliefs. If there are any Pastafarians out there who do that, that's certainly not something I personally approve of. 

16 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

But what really gets my gears going (kidding) is the ones who use it at an excuse to force their way, and with it their mockery, into other peoples everyday public lives.

Yeah, we do make headlines from time to time...but you have to admit, a news story about someone fighting for their legal right to wear a colander on their head is a nice change from all the grim stories portrayed daily on the news. If it makes people laugh (or even better, THINK), then Pastafarianism is serving its purpose and providing a much needed service to society  

16 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

I get it, you think its unfair that Abraham gets to wear some cool jewellery at school under religious tolerance laws.. but is it really cool to force the school to let you wear a colander as a hat in class so you can turn your nose up at his beliefs? You know that shits disruptive and shines a spot light unfairly on Abraham as well..

I'm not saying that's what you do, but this is what your group does and is one of its purposes in trying to be defined as an actual religion. And frankly is a bit of a dick move when all he's doing is wearing a old school hat or some necklace or something to feel comfortable. 

You're missing the point. No one actually intends on wearing a colander to school or work (although if they did so, it would be pretty funny), the idea is to question what actually constitutes a religion, why secular societies afford special privileges to religious groups, and why there should be any bias towards one religion over another. Pastafarianism isn't only meant to criticize religion, but also expose the hypocrisy inherent in supposedly secular societies and make a stance in favor of ideological freedom (Pastafarians also defend the ideological rights of believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Jediism, Matrixism, Last Thursdayism, or any random concoction of personal beliefs anyone chooses to shape into their life philosophy)

16 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Because I love playing devil's advocate.. 

Yeah, I'd figured out that much by now  

I'm used to the "criticize/ridicule the belief system of the person whose religion mocks other religions"...I get that a lot. It makes sense, people want to test you to see if you're "coherent" (If you can have a taste of your own medicine), under the erroneous assumption that Pastafarians walk around openly criticizing or attacking individuals for their religion. Although the premise for doing so is based on a hasty generalization, I often take the bait because, like you, I also enjoy a good discussion 

16 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

P.S , I'm not religious, so don't think I'm defending the church or anything. 

Neither am I. The religion/philosophy I'm most ideologically aligned with is Dudeism (I'm also an ordained priest of the Church of the Latter Day Dude) 

For anyone following this post who might be interested/curious, this video offers a pretty good summary/analysis:

 

 

[Dingfelder]

22 minutes ago, travsformation said:

The "You will be painted [...]" statement reflects more on you than it does on me. The notion of having to paint me in the first place is a choice that you make. Why do I need to be painted at all? Why does anyone? Why do you feel you need to paint people? And if you have to paint everyone you come across....that sounds like an awful lot of work... (Sidenote: paint ain't cheap. And even if you're getting great discounts, it always costs something) 

 

As Steven Wright once said, "It's  a small world, but I wouldn't want to have to paint it."

Cool cartoon ... though I think Cthulhu's wings were a bit too big.  I'm not the type to do any burning or purging about it, though.

 

[travsformation]

 

 

[travsformation]

13 minutes ago, Dingfelder said:

I think Cthulhu's wings were a bit too big.  I'm not the type to do any burning or purging about it, though.

Yeah. Damn lazy Pastafarians didn't do their research properly!

[Alex_from_NZ]

5 hours ago, Mono said:

You seem to (harshly) criticize those who attack or mock or make fun of religion or religious beliefs. That is, you seem to say that they do not have good reasons for their attack. That looks like defending religion to me.

You may think that, but your wrong. It's about intent to me. The intent, obvious and very clearly stated by the people who started Pastafarianism as a religion was to mock people who believe something different to them. That's what I have a problem with. I equally have a problem with other religions who do the same thing. But just because one does something bad, doesn't give right to others to as well. Live and let live. 

Quote

I guess it goes back to the same old question: should an attack on a belief be considered as an attack on a person holding this belief. But if so, how could you attack beliefs at all?

Again it's about intent to me. If your belief system is centered around an ideology designed to mock people into your way of thinking then yeah, you can be attacked for that. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

 

I wasn't being defensive.

You stated in another comment you were being defensive, sorry if I misunderstood. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

My reply was a counter-argument meant to expose what I perceive as a fallacy in your reasoning. Simply stating "You will be painted with the brush you decide to run with" doesn't make it so. Or in the words of The Dude, "That's just, like, your opinion, man" 

The "You will be painted [...]" statement reflects more on you than it does on me. The notion of having to paint me in the first place is a choice that you make. Why do I need to be painted at all? Why does anyone? Why do you feel you need to paint people? And if you have to paint everyone you come across....that sounds like an awful lot of work... (Sidenote: paint ain't cheap. And even if you're getting great discounts, it always costs something) 

I again disagree. And again I'll use the kkk example. If you run with a bunch of racists, your going to be seen as racist. Whether or not you utter racist statements, your support of the racist group paints you as a racist. 

This is not the lens, this is who you are choosing to associate with. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

Because it's a very well thought-out critique of religion:

Lol. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

It has a belief system, a book that collects said beliefs (The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster), a version of the ten commandments (The 8 I'd rather You Didnt's), a faith-based God whose existence can't be proven or disproven, a story of creation, a theory on the afterlife,  religious attire (colander and pirate-related garments), a founder ,and followers. Same components as Christianity, Judaism or Islam, but different tenets.

And different intent. The intent of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc is not to ridicule others. They are actual belief systems that people actually believe in and help them with their lives. Pastafarians on the other hand do not believe the nonsense they proclaim, they know no one believes it, it was chosen specifically to be the least believable thing with the intent to ridicule people who have beliefs. You can put all the facades to it you want to qualify under specific definitions as much as you please, but the reality is everyone knows its not a religion and is just a joke made at the expense of other people. Intent. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

The point being: who's to say which one's valid and which one isn't? That kind of playful and well-developed critique appeals to me, and if I were to take religion seriously

Yep.. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

and hypothetically had to choose a religion (and the afterlife it promises), Pastafarianism would be at the top of my list, waaaay ahead of all mainstream religions. But I'll let this introductory video explain why for me:

 

(If it didn't make you laugh, or at least smile, you really need to lighten up...)

Meh, it was OK but is still just a joke. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up  (except for the fact we ridicule religion, not people. But then again, there's the age-old question that @Mono brought up about whether there's a distinction or not, and whether a (non-tangible) belief system can even be attacked in the first place)

Of course it can. Lots of Nazis had the non tangible belief about racial superiority in a number of fields. I will attack them all day every day for it. Again, intent is the decider for me. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

In any case, I don't know what PERSONAL experience you've had with Pastafarians, but possibly excluding New Zealand, we tend to keep to ourselves. Contrary to what you may think, we don't go around criticizing other people for their faith (at least I don't, nor do any of the Pastafarians I know) we just joke around about it among ourselves. I don't really see the harm in that. There's a difference between adhering to (or humorously pretending to believe in) a mock religion, and walking into a Church and mocking people's beliefs.

Except that's what you do. You wear colanders to show your disdain of religious beliefs in public. Not at home alone, and you don't do it just at home by yourself because you don't actually believe in it man. The only reason you wear it is to make fun of people who have beliefs, and you can only make fun of them when you have an audience. If you kept it to yourself I wouldn't care, but you don't. You force it upon the public by protesting your way into being accepted as a legit religion so you can force your mockery into others lives in places they should be able to feel comfortable and unthreatened. Abraham legit feels he needs to wear his hat to be able to learn at school at his best. He feels that way because he truly believes in his religious teachings. He is not doing it for anyone but himself. You on the other hand don't believe you need a colander to learn at school, you do it to draw attention to your beliefs. The intent is entirely different mate. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

If there are any Pastafarians out there who do that, that's certainly not something I personally approve of. 

That's the purpose of your religion mate, you and your mates might just think its funny, but the intent behind it is not so nice. Live and let live man. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

Yeah, we do make headlines from time to time...

You keep to yourselves but also make headlines... Seems consistent. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

but you have to admit, a news story about someone fighting for their legal right to wear a colander on their head is a nice change from all the grim stories portrayed daily on the news.

Not really, just wasted resources, time and energy and a bunch of drama for nothing. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

If it makes people laugh (or even better, THINK), then Pastafarianism is serving its purpose and providing a much needed service to society  

You're missing the point. No one actually intends on wearing a colander to school or work

Except they do. Seen it plenty. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

(although if they did so, it would be pretty funny), the idea is to question what actually constitutes a religion, why secular societies afford special privileges to religious groups, and why there should be any bias towards one religion over another. Pastafarianism isn't only meant to criticize religion, but also expose the hypocrisy inherent in supposedly secular societies and make a stance in favor of ideological freedom (Pastafarians also defend the ideological rights of believers in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Jediism, Matrixism, Last Thursdayism, or any random concoction of personal beliefs anyone chooses to shape into their life philosophy)

So again forcing your beliefs into other people's lives by way of mockery. 

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

Yeah, I'd figured out that much by now  

I'm used to the "criticize/ridicule the belief system of the person whose religion mocks other religions"...I get that a lot. It makes sense, people want to test you to see if you're "coherent" (If you can have a taste of your own medicine), under the erroneous assumption that Pastafarians walk around openly criticizing or attacking individuals for their religion. Although the premise for doing so is based on a hasty generalization, I often take the bait because, like you, I also enjoy a good discussion 

Neither am I. The religion/philosophy I'm most ideologically aligned with is Dudeism (I'm also an ordained priest of the Church of the Latter Day Dude) 

For anyone following this post who might be interested/curious, this video offers a pretty good summary/analysis:

 

 

 

[Mono]

38 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

it was chosen specifically to be the least believable thing with the intent to ridicule people who have beliefs

Least believable thing, exactly, but shouldn't we ask them what their intend was to chose the least believable thing?

38 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

The intent, obvious and very clearly stated by the people who started Pastafarianism as a religion was to mock people who believe something different to them.

OK, where can I find a reference for this? It's difficult to read out of the Wikipedia entry. Do you honestly believe the majority of them would say to ridicule people rather than to ridicule religion is the objective? I don't believe that, but I also haven't ask any of them (unless they were in the closet from my perception), so @travsformation is the only reference I would have for the time being.

 

[Dingfelder]

38 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

And different intent. The intent of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc is not to ridicule others.

 

Not so fast.

Mocking people is the least of the transgressions people of faith have historically inflicted on each other.  

I think it's clear that religions create a sense of community.  Indeed I've seen a poll cite that the reason most people go to church in America at least is for social reasons.  It is always true that any sense of inclusion, of being "in the club" or "in the right" creates its evil twin by default, the sense of an "other," of "outsiders."  Personally I believe the desire to exclude, and to be part of a privileged elite, one with superior magic or morality or even worldly privilege, is as much a driving force behind people banding together under religions and ideologies as is inclusion and acceptance within a group.

Outsiders are almost always anything from ignored to disdained, sometimes shunned and excluded from communities, jobs, and trade, and commonly thought of and often spoke of as morally and/or intellectually inferior.  Anyone in a religious minority will have had that experience repeatedly.  

I remember when I was a kid, living in a place that was almost universally Catholic, mothers would come out and angrily pull their kids away from playing with me, often giving me a very stinky look.  This was when I was like five or six years old, totally inappropriate for virtually any reason, IMO, at that age.  Later their kids would tell me that their family told them that since I wasn't Christian, I therefore worshipped Satan.

So let's not get satisfied with the idea that religions are harmless in the way they tend to separate people out, shame them, and discriminate against them.  That's not the way it works in the real world and it never has been, from ancient history with all their self-righteous slaughters and enslavements down to the most innocent possible little kids playing in a sandbox today.

 

[Dingfelder]

Further, I don't want a world full of scared people running off to their safe spaces.  A world safe from criticism can only be totalitarian.  I grew up in racially mixed areas and we all kidded each other and flung stupid jokes and stereotypes around.  We were much the better for it.  These days people are constantly on guard and even a joke is a chance for someone to start a crusade or leap at an opportunity for moral one-upsmanship.

That stinks, and makes both society at large and we, each as individuals, the lesser for it.

[Mono]

47 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

You can put all the facades to it you want to qualify under specific definitions as much as you please, but the reality is everyone knows its not a religion and is just a joke made at the expense of other people. Intent. 

Sure, most of them don't believe the non-sense. It is a role play which make them feel better and which they believe will make the world a better place (ironically close to religion, isn't it). My hunch is still that the ultimate intent was to put all other religions on the same believability level as Pastafarianism.

[Alex_from_NZ]

1 hour ago, Mono said:

Least believable thing, exactly, but shouldn't we ask them what their intend was to chose the least believable thing?

OK, where can I find a reference for this? It's difficult to read out of the Wikipedia entry. Do you honestly believe the majority of them would say to ridicule people rather than to ridicule religion is the objective? I don't believe that, but I also haven't ask any of them (unless they were in the closet from my perception), so @travsformation is the only reference I would have for the time being.

 

I need to preface this by saying I believe ridiculing people's legit beliefs is the same as ridiculing them. Why should the Muslim kid be made to feel ridiculed because of their beliefs if they haven't asked for it?

Anyway, the intent I think is pretty clear by way of their own tenants, which are a satirical take on Christianity. Just one example.. All prayers must be ended with RAmen.. If that's not mocking someones actual beliefs what is? 

Further, it was created not out of any real belief system, but as a protest by high school kids against the (retarded I agree) decision by their state school board to include creationism in a school in Ohio. Literally created as a joke religion to protest with, specifically at the expense of people with actual beliefs. 

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

 

Not so fast.

Mocking people is the least of the transgressions people of faith have historically inflicted on each other.  

I think it's clear that religions create a sense of community.  Indeed I've seen a poll cite that the reason most people go to church in America at least is for social reasons.  It is always true that any sense of inclusion, of being "in the club" or "in the right" creates its evil twin by default, the sense of an "other," of "outsiders."  Personally I believe the desire to exclude, and to be part of a privileged elite, one with superior magic or morality or even worldly privilege, is as much a driving force behind people banding together under religions and ideologies as is inclusion and acceptance within a group.

Outsiders are almost always anything from ignored to disdained, sometimes shunned and excluded from communities, jobs, and trade, and commonly thought of and often spoke of as morally and/or intellectually inferior.  Anyone in a religious minority will have had that experience repeatedly.  

I remember when I was a kid, living in a place that was almost universally Catholic, mothers would come out and angrily pull their kids away from playing with me, often giving me a very stinky look.  This was when I was like five or six years old, totally inappropriate for virtually any reason, IMO, at that age.  Later their kids would tell me that their family told them that since I wasn't Christian, I therefore worshipped Satan.

So let's not get satisfied with the idea that religions are harmless in the way they tend to separate people out, shame them, and discriminate against them.  That's not the way it works in the real world and it never has been, from ancient history with all their self-righteous slaughters and enslavements down to the most innocent possible little kids playing in a sandbox today.

 

I am sorry you have had that experience, that is utterly shit and I'm sorry you went through that. But I can't say it's the experience I nor anyone I know have ever had. Even though I'm Athiest slash agnostic and kinda outspoken ? myself..

But again, I'm not here defending religion, just people's right to go about having their religion without being mocked by a group who use religious tolerance laws to do so in public settings.  I equally detest and will happily argue with religions who have discriminated many times, on many things.

And I think we can agree, through centuries of theology dissection, that none of the religions I mentioned were created in an effort to simply mock other people. 

1 hour ago, Dingfelder said:

Further, I don't want a world full of scared people running off to their safe spaces.  A world safe from criticism can only be totalitarian.  I grew up in racially mixed areas and we all kidded each other and flung stupid jokes and stereotypes around.  We were much the better for it.  These days people are constantly on guard and even a joke is a chance for someone to start a crusade or leap at an opportunity for moral one-upsmanship.

That stinks, and makes both society at large and we, each as individuals, the lesser for it.

I actually disagree entirely. As a kid who also grew up in a racially diverse society it was the "jokes" that tore us apart. Its funny (irony), but my white mates thought they were bonding or whatever when they called me 'nigger' or made jokes about Maoris being criminals or whatever, I felt I didn't have a choice much at this time if I wanted friends but to go along with it, but it fucking hurt because they were reinforcing negative stereotypes against who i was as a person.   I actually know a number of guys who are in jail now, who will tell you when asked why they decided to live a life of crime, or gangs or hard drug abuse that one of the main reasons is that they felt that was what society expected of them.  Stereotypes are stereotypes not only because they are occasionally true, but also because they often reinforce the path of the stereotype to those being stereotyped.

Now I'm older I've realised I don't need people who don't understand that in my life and when people these days have done it i have put them in their place pretty quick, and thankfully as we are all older now, for the most part, people have once ive explained it understood how their actions were not universally perceived as they perceive them, and actually to some people what they thought was just banter or whatever was hurtful shit. 

1 hour ago, Mono said:

Sure, most of them don't believe the non-sense. It is a role play which make them feel better and which they believe will make the world a better place (ironically close to religion, isn't it). My hunch is still that the ultimate intent was to put all other religions on the same believability level as Pastafarianism.

Which is one chosen to be as unbelievable and ridiculous as possible. They want people to see what they think they see, that there is no god. But they do it by mocking, not intelligent discussion or understanding.

[travsformation]

 

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

The intent, obvious and very clearly stated by the people who started Pastafarianism as a religion was to mock people who believe something different to them.

Firstly..."The intent, obvious and very clearly stated by the people who started Pastafarianism...."? May I ask where you got that from? I've read a fair deal of Pastafarian texts, but have yet to come across anything that states any such thing...

Secondly, "The intent [...] was to mock people who believe something different to them" :

And how exactly did they set out about doing that?

I think you're getting mixed up here, let me see if I get this straight: Pastafarianism was invented to mock other religions, and at the same time, it mocks other religions...because the followers of those religions believe something other than Pastafarianism???    Sounds like a bit of a catch22 to me...

Or, perhaps some form of time-travel paradox...?

If their "founding motivation" was to mock other religions, they had to develop a belief system (based on other religions) before they were able to use it to mock said religions...right?

Where, in that case, did their motivation to mock other religions for believing something different to them come from if at that point they hadn't yet developed their belief system? 

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

And different intent. The intent of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc is not to ridicule others. They are actual belief systems that people actually believe in and help them with their lives. Pastafarians on the other hand do not believe the nonsense they proclaim, they know no one believes it, it was chosen specifically to be the least believable thing with the intent to ridicule people who have beliefs.

You do realize that in your reply you skipped EVERY SINGLE POINT I made about the INTENT/purpose of Pastafarianism, don't you? How much do you really know about Pastafarianism? How many Pastafarians have you actually talked to? And as @Mono suggested, now that you're discussing with one, wouldn't it be make more sense to ask that person about their religion to find out more about it before criticizing it, rather than ignoring the person's answers (particularly the ones that don't fit into your preconceived notion of Pastafarianism) and telling the Pastafarian what Pastafarianism is about?

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

If your belief system is centered around an ideology designed to mock people into your way of thinking then yeah, you can be attacked for that. 

1) I'd be interested in knowing where you get your information on Pastafarianism. Have you actually read how it came into existence? Do you have anything other than your word to back those claims?
2) Justifying attacks based on ideology sounds a lot like the Spanish inquisition or the crusades to me...

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Except that's what you do. You wear colanders to show your disdain of religious beliefs in public. Not at home alone, and you don't do it just at home by yourself because you don't actually believe in it man. The only reason you wear it is to make fun of people who have beliefs

I've actually never put on a colander in public in my life. If I may, how many people have you come across (personally), in your lifetime, wearing a colander on their head?

And as to the "That's what you do" + "make fun of others"....this is getting old....I think a FACT-BASED discussion where you take into consideration your opponent's arguments when replying would be much more productive...

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Not really, just wasted resources, time and energy and a bunch of drama for nothing.

If you perceive someone's fight to wear a colander on their head (and any social unrest that it might [but shouldn't] create) as a drama...well...that explains a lot...

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

You keep to yourselves but also make headlines... Seems consistent.

Blame the news outlets for that, they're the ones who decide to cover it based on whether they think it's a juicy story or not

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Quote

No one actually intends on wearing a colander to school or work

Except they do. Seen it plenty. 

Can you conjure up a single example? (I'd also like to ask the same question about any instance you've personally seen of Pastafarians openly mocking individual believers of other faiths)

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Quote

If there are any Pastafarians out there who do that, that's certainly not something I personally approve of. 

That's the purpose of your religion mate

Thanks for clarifying the purpose of my religion for me...

3 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Live and let live man.

Exactly...

What would you think if this were a "Are there any Baptists/Lutherans/Evangelists/Muslims/Jews out there?" thread and there were an atheist, a hindu or a Buddhist using the thread to dispute the aforementioned's dogma, which wasn't in any way the intent of the thread? (Since you mention intent so much... ).

Who exactly is attacking others' beliefs here....?  Not that I particularly care, just thought it might be an interesting question for you to reflect on...

3 hours ago, Mono said:

OK, where can I find a reference for this? It's difficult to read out of the Wikipedia entry. Do you honestly believe the majority of them would say to ridicule people rather than to ridicule religion is the objective? I don't believe that, but I also haven't ask any of them

In a nutshell, Bobby Henderson wrote to the Kansas State Board of Education after they gave preliminary approval to teach intelligent design in classrooms and Bush Jr. approved the initiative. In his letter to the board, he mimicked all the arguments given by Christians for the teaching of intelligent design, but with his own made-up version involving the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The idea was that their arguments were entirely faith-based, and that if such theories were allowed to be taught, he had the right to for his to be taught too. Needless to say, he wasn't trying to get his theory into the classrooms, but expose how unscientific the arguments used by intelligent design proponents were and denounce the fact that a State-level Board of Education in a secular country was giving the green light to teach faith-based science (an interesting concept in itself...). And from there, it caught on and snowballed until it eventually turned into a religion ....There's a pretty good account here. I find the ending of the article quite befitting. @Dingfelder it ties in well with your comment regarding religion not being harmless and "mocking people being the least of the transgressions people of faith have historically inflicted on each other"

"The history books show that parody isn't always the smartest strategy when it comes to persuasion. Remember Galileo? Some recent scholars say that it may not have been his science so much as his satire, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," that got everyone steamed up. Under threat of death, Galileo ended up recanting his view that the earth revolves around the sun, and had to wait 350 years for vindication."

3 hours ago, Mono said:

Sure, most of them don't believe the non-sense. It is a role play which make them feel better and which they believe will make the world a better place

There's always value in challenging established rules and dogmas, whether its religion, race, gender, sexual inclination...

3 hours ago, Mono said:

ironically close to religion, isn't it

Hahaha I guess that depends on how seriously one takes Pastafarianism

I'd be pretty shocked if I were to discover that there are any Pastafarians out there who feel a level of devotion comparable to believers in non-satyrical faiths (the kind of fervour that, as @Dingfelder mentioned, leads people to segregate, discriminate or burn people at the stake)...and if there are any, I'm sure their mental issues would manifest themselves no matter what religion they chose to believe in 

 

3 hours ago, Mono said:

My hunch is still that the ultimate intent was to put all other religions on the same believability level as Pastafarianism.

There are tens of thousands of Pastafarians out there (I'd say about 70.000 on the Facebook page) and each one of them might have a different interpretation, but I entirely agree with your statement and am pretty sure 99% of other Pastafarians would too

[travsformation]

2 hours ago, Dingfelder said:

Further, I don't want a world full of scared people running off to their safe spaces.  A world safe from criticism can only be totalitarian.  I grew up in racially mixed areas and we all kidded each other and flung stupid jokes and stereotypes around.  We were much the better for it.  These days people are constantly on guard and even a joke is a chance for someone to start a crusade or leap at an opportunity for moral one-upsmanship.

That stinks, and makes both society at large and we, each as individuals, the lesser for it.

Well put, couldn't agree more!

[travsformation]

2 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

They want people to see what they think they see, that there is no god.

Whereas religious people don't want others to see what they see, that there is a God?

2 hours ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

But they do it by mocking, not intelligent discussion or understanding. 

I find the founder's careful dissection of what constitutes a religion and satirical mimicking of Christian theories and components pretty clever. Intelligent mocking should count for something...

I honestly wouldn't want to live in a society where satire can't be used to question certain things (religion, gender or race issues, etc.). It's an invaluable tool that can be used to denounce social, political or any other form of injustice in a fun and harmless way. I'm sure you enjoy satire on a daily basis and broad range of subjects, but guess religion is still a touchy subject, even in 2018...

BTW, I just happen to be reading a book about the first settlers of NZ and how Christianity was forced on the Maoris. There's a MASSIVE difference between the arrogance and sense of superiority European colonizers displayed and the playful satire of Pastafarianism (not to mention the fact we're not expropriating land,  enslaving or killing, but satirizing the religion that did)

[Alex_from_NZ]

1 hour ago, travsformation said:

 

Firstly..."The intent, obvious and very clearly stated by the people who started Pastafarianism...."? May I ask where you got that from? I've read a fair deal of Pastafarian texts, but have yet to come across anything that states any such thing...

Secondly, "The intent [...] was to mock people who believe something different to them" :

And how exactly did they set out about doing that?

 

By creating a religion where the dogma is specifically chosen as a satirical look at other actual religions.  Or do you think it was his noodly divine intervention that happened to make your R'Amen a whimsical take on Christianity's Amen?  Get your head out of the sand brah.

Quote

I think you're getting mixed up here, let me see if I get this straight: Pastafarianism was invented to mock other religions, and at the same time, it mocks other religions...because the followers of those religions believe something other than Pastafarianism???    Sounds like a bit of a catch22 to me...

 

It sounds like your confused to me.. 

Pastafarianism was created as an athiest religion to protest a school boards decision to include Creationism in some school in Ohio (look it up if you don't believe me, although i would of thought such a devout follower such as yourself would know this fact).  They specifically chose tenants from other religions to use as a basis for a satirical take to create their protest religion.  By doing so they are choosing to openly mock people who believe something other than they do (that there is a god) simply to make their point.  

Quote

Or, perhaps some form of time-travel paradox...?

If their "founding motivation" was to mock other religions, they had to develop a belief system (based on other religions) before they were able to use it to mock said religions...right?

Where, in that case, did their motivation to mock other religions for believing something different to them come from if at that point they hadn't yet developed their belief system? 

 

If this were an actual belief system then this would be true, but as we have now established no one believes in an actual Pasta Monster God.  The creators didnt belive in it, it was created to use as a protest vechile.  You have also stated that "if you took religion seriously", which indicates you dont and that you dont belive in the dogma of it either.

Quote

 

You do realize that in your reply you skipped EVERY SINGLE POINT I made about the INTENT/purpose of Pastafarianism, don't you? How much do you really know about Pastafarianism? How many Pastafarians have you actually talked to?

 

At this point, one too many.. 

But seriously, too bloody many.  All with a chip on their shoulder about Christianity or Islam or some-such-thing someone else is doing.  Its like cross fit, how do you know someone does cross fit?  Dont worry, they will tell you.

Quote

And as @Mono suggested, now that you're discussing with one, wouldn't it be make more sense to ask that person about their religion to find out more about it before criticizing it, rather than ignoring the person's answers (particularly the ones that don't fit into your preconceived notion of Pastafarianism) and telling the Pastafarian what Pastafarianism is about?

 

Sorry, you said you dont take religion seriously.  You dont think its intent is to poke fun at other religions, despite the evidence that is its purpose. Nor how it came to be, nor even the actions in other parts of the world that are undertaken in your groups name.  It kinda feels like I'm enlightening you here...     

Quote

1) I'd be interested in knowing where you get your information on Pastafarianism. Have you actually read how it came into existence? Do you have anything other than your word to back those claims?

 

Yes, yes i have.  Friend, i am a creature of the internet..  

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pastafarianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Henderson_(activist)

https://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Quote

2) Justifying attacks based on ideology sounds a lot like the Spanish inquisition or the crusades to me...

I've actually never put on a colander in public in my life. If I may, how many people have you come across (personally), in your lifetime, wearing a colander on their head?

1

About 6.  A couple of idiots who get themselves on the news here whenever they can, for whatever they can.  One of your "spokesmen" who used to "preach" in the city next to the Cathloc Homeless Mission (ballsy guy).  The kids who disrupt school for my cousins all the time.  The edgy university students who also "preach" whenever there is any religious festival like Dwali... As i said, we have a lot of "alternative" thinkers here in NZ.  Hence the large number of Scientologists we also have here. *sigh* 

Quote

And as to the "That's what you do" + "make fun of others"....this is getting old....I think a FACT-BASED discussion where you take into consideration your opponent's arguments when replying would be much more productive...

If you perceive someone's fight to wear a colander on their head (and any social unrest that it might [but shouldn't] create) as a drama...well...that explains a lot...

1

It IS drama.  Does my cousin's schooling need to be disrupted by the same kids each term wanting to put kitchen wear on their heads?  Those religious festivals, do they need some idiots protesting the existence of religion as being as ridiculous as someone wearing a colander and believing in a spaghetti monster?  I dont think so mate, thats drama for the sake of your own wants desires to push your beliefs in others faces.

Quote

Blame the news outlets for that, they're the ones who decide to cover it based on whether they think it's a juicy story or not

 

Except quite often you (your group i mean) does it with the intent of drawing attention to themselves.  They are actively looking for the exposure a lot of the time buddy.

Quote

Can you conjure up a single example? (I'd also like to ask the same question about any instance you've personally seen of Pastafarians openly mocking individual believers of other faiths)

 

The dogma ITSELF is mocking other peoples beliefs.  See R'Amen above, or the prayer that starts "Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles.."  You cant seriously not see this as mocking Christianity can you?  Its pretty blatent.. 

Quote

Thanks for clarifying the purpose of my religion for me...

 

Anytime.. you seemed confused..  

Quote

Exactly...

What would you think if this were a "Are there any Baptists/Lutherans/Evangelists/Muslims/Jews out there?" thread and there were an atheist, a hindu or a Buddhist using the thread to dispute the aforementioned's dogma, which wasn't in any way the intent of the thread? (Since you mention intent so much... ).

2

So your upset i responded to your questions? You asked why i downvoted, i explained (it was in the wrong place mostly, now fixed of course and hence im happy to discuss further here) and why i thought the "religion" was in poor taste.  

Quote

Who exactly is attacking others' beliefs here....?  Not that I particularly care, just thought it might be an interesting question for you to reflect on...

 

You are by participating in a group whose purpose and existence is centered around the very notion of mocking intelligent design. 

I know your trying to say i am attacking your beliefs, but we have already established you dont believe in an actual spaghetti monster anyway, so i feel im on pretty safe grounds here..  

Quote

In a nutshell, Bobby Henderson wrote to the Kansas State Board of Education after they gave preliminary approval to teach intelligent design in classrooms and Bush Jr. approved the initiative. In his letter to the board, he mimicked all the arguments given by Christians for the teaching of intelligent design, but with his own made-up version involving the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The idea was that their arguments were entirely faith-based, and that if such theories were allowed to be taught, he had the right to for his to be taught too. Needless to say, he wasn't trying to get his theory into the classrooms, but expose how unscientific the arguments used by intelligent design proponents were and denounce the fact that a State-level Board of Education in a secular country was giving the green light to teach faith-based science (an interesting concept in itself...). And from there, it caught on and snowballed until it eventually turned into a religion ....There's a pretty good account here. I find the ending of the article quite befitting. @Dingfelder it ties in well with your comment regarding religion not being harmless and "mocking people being the least of the transgressions people of faith have historically inflicted on each other"

2

So you are aware! Glad we can now put this to bed  

[Alex_from_NZ]

37 minutes ago, travsformation said:

Whereas religious people don't want others to see what they see, that there is a God?

I find the founder's careful dissection of what constitutes a religion and satirical mimicking of Christian theories and components pretty clever. Intelligent mocking should count for something...

I honestly wouldn't want to live in a society where satire can't be used to question certain things (religion, gender or race issues, etc.). It's an invaluable tool that can be used to denounce social, political or any other form of injustice in a fun and harmless way. I'm sure you enjoy satire on a daily basis and broad range of subjects, but guess religion is still a touchy subject, even in 2018...

BTW, I just happen to be reading a book about the first settlers of NZ and how Christianity was forced on the Maoris. There's a MASSIVE difference between the arrogance and sense of superiority European colonizers displayed and the playful satire of Pastafarianism (not to mention the fact we're not expropriating land,  enslaving or killing, but satirizing the religion that did)

You guys keep using the argument of "what they did is worse though!!!!"

Hate to break it to you, but thats not an argument.  

[Alex_from_NZ]

43 minutes ago, travsformation said:

BTW, I just happen to be reading a book about the first settlers of NZ and how Christianity was forced on the Maoris. There's a MASSIVE difference between the arrogance and sense of superiority European colonizers displayed and the playful satire of Pastafarianism (not to mention the fact we're not expropriating land,  enslaving or killing, but satirizing the religion that did)

 

Whats the book?  Honestly sounds like they dont know what they were talking about if thats the impression of our history it is leaving you.  Maybe a couple of outlying cases, but the overwhelming majority of the killing, land stealing and enslavement carry on was done by the New Zealand Land Company (a British company set up to sell land) and the subsequent land wars that resulted in land being sold that was not owned.  But also frankly, we were a tribal and warring nation.  We fought with each other all the time for land and resources, and well an enemy of my enemy... 

[travsformation]

8 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Quote

Pastafarianism was invented to mock other religions, and at the same time, it mocks other religions...because the followers of those religions believe something other than Pastafarianism???    Sounds like a bit of a catch22 to me...

 

It sounds like your confused to me.. 

I don't think you fully understoof what I was trying to say there...

9 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

Pastafarianism was created as an athiest religion to protest a school boards decision to include Creationism in some school in Ohio (look it up if you don't believe me, although i would of thought such a devout follower such as yourself would know this fact). 

I already pointed that out in my previous comment...

 

10 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

It kinda feels like I'm enlightening you here...     

Yepp...defeinitely... [sigh...]

 

11 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

"A couple of idiots who get themselves on the news..."

 

Isn't this taking a turn towards disrespect?

12 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

The dogma ITSELF is mocking other peoples beliefs.  See R'Amen above, or the prayer that starts "Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be your noodles.."  You cant seriously not see this as mocking Christianity can you?  Its pretty blatent.. 

I hadn't thought of that...thanks for enlightening me...

 

[Alex_from_NZ]

52 minutes ago, travsformation said:

I don't think you fully hadn't what I was trying to say there...

 

You are correct.

Quote

I already pointed that out in my previous comment...

 

I hadnt gotten that far down in your comment yet, i admit. 

Quote

Isn't this taking a turn towards disrespect?

 

Because i label them idiots?  What do you call a couple of high school kids wearing colanders to school exams, being told to take it off as its disrupting other students, press the issue until they are removed from exams, then go run to the media about it?  Enlightened? (of future prospects perhaps.. ) 

Quote

I hadn't thought of that...thanks for enlightening me...

 

You are welcome friend  

[travsformation]

@Alex_from_NZ:

1) I've never criticized anyone for their religious beliefs, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Nor have I brought up the fact I'm a Pastafarian with any Christians, Muslims, etc., as I feel THAT would be a lack of respect. I "adhere" to Pastafarianism because it embodies a set of critical values I agree with, but it's a personal choice that I don't enforce upon others (or even mention to anyone I think it might offend).

2) I actively enjoy the satire in Pastafarian forums, but as it goes, this is the first time I've EVER discussed Pastafarianism outside a Pastafarian group. Granted, I've explained it to several friends and family members who were curious (and found it amusing), but when I posted this thread I definitely didn't anticipate a response like this...My point being:

3) The individual is not the same as the group. Sorry if I plucked a nerve, but I think you chose to vent your Pastafarian-related frustrations on the wrong person... (please refer to point 1).

4) Some people need to lighten up a bit and learn how to take a joke / healthy dose of satire

5) This is starting to feel like religious discrimination...if you keep attacking my beliefs and comparing me to the KKK, I might sue you... (or to more strictly adhere to Pastafarian rules of conduct, make you walk the plank) (please refer to point 4)

6) This discussion is going around in circles. My intention wasn't to start a religious debate, and although it was fun at first, no offence, but I'm beginning to feel it's a bit pointless to discuss this subject with someone capable of taking the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster so seriously (it feels like you take it more seriously than I do)

So, in short...I think I'm going to cook some fresh pasta, defrost some homemade marinara sauce and drop out of this discussion. Even if a fellow Pastafarian shows up in this thread, I think all FSM-related topics are best left to FSM-related forums. It's a bit of a buzzkill to see something funny be taken so seriously and turned into such an ideologically charged (and in the end, tedious) debate...

May you some day be touched by His noodly appendages and may He unburden you from your moral load. And if He doesn't do so (because He forgets, is drunk, or doesn't care...as He has little interest in human affairs), the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is patient and tolerant and may offer you what you're looking for here: https://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/

R'amen

 

[Dingfelder]

58 minutes ago, Alex_from_NZ said:

At this point, one too many.. 

But seriously, too bloody many.  All with a chip on their shoulder about Christianity or Islam or some-such-thing someone else is doing.  Its like cross fit, how do you know someone does cross fit?  Dont worry, they will tell you.

 

 

Funny, I haven't talked to one Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Bahai (sp?) or agnostic, or atheist too many.  And especially Christians, it's certainly been in the thousands.  Yet I'm still fine with it.  

I can understand being sensitive, but it can go too far.  Nobody has a right to go through life with his or her ideas unopposed.

I really don't believe people should be safe from speech.  Outside of the usual "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" kind of thing.  You have to choose between having a truly free society and curtailing speech.  You can't have both at the same time.

In several European countries, people are put in jail for having opinions, writing books or articles, or even making jokes.  In Britain, a guy who goes on youtube by the name of Count Dankula found his girlfriend's dog annoying, so he played a prank on her. He taught it to raise its hand in a sort of "Sieg Heil!" nazi salute.  The video went viral.  He went to jail for bad taste.  

And of course in many countries where religion is inextricable from government, it gets much worse than that.

If such systems become our role model, we will have lost the uniqueness of our place in history as people who have never been more free.

There is always someone who wants to shut speech down "for our own good."  When the question arises as to whose speech should be stifled, virtually nobody ever leaps up to sacrifice the rights he cherishes in order to get the ball rolling and as a show of good faith.  Yet there is always unceasing clamor to sacrifice the next guy over and discard his rights.

[Alex_from_NZ]

2 minutes ago, travsformation said:

1) I've never criticized anyone for their religious beliefs, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. Nor have I brought up the fact I'm a Pastafarian with any Christians, Muslims, etc., as I feel THAT would be a lack of respect. I "adhere" to Pastafarianism because it embodies a set of critical values I agree with, but it's a personal choice that I don't enforce upon others (or even mention to anyone I think it might offend).

 

You seem to still not understand that the group intent is to do the things you say you dont do.  It was created to argue against other peoples beliefs and structured in a way to do that by mocking the things they believe.  Its cool you say you dont take part in that, but i argue your inclusion in the group is pretty much the same thing.

2 minutes ago, travsformation said:

2) I actively enjoy the satire in Pastafarian forums, but as it goes, this is the first time I've EVER discussed Pastafarianism outside a Pastafarian group. Granted, I've explained it to several friends and family members who were curious (and found it amusing), but when I posted this thread I definitely didn't anticipate a response like this...My point being:

3) The individual is not the same as the group. Sorry if I plucked a nerve, but I think you chose to vent your Pastafarian-related frustrations on the wrong person... (please refer to point 1).

 

We have a difference of opinion here.  As mentioned previously, i believe if you join a group with a stated purpose then you are supporting that purpose.  Sorry you are offended!

2 minutes ago, travsformation said:

4) Some people need to lighten up a bit and learn how to take a joke / healthy dose of satire

 

Im fine with jokes when they are not at the expense of other people, or when they are kept private.  Do you like jokes being made about you publically?

2 minutes ago, travsformation said:

5) This is starting to feel like religious discrimination...if you keep attacking my beliefs and comparing me to the KKK, I might sue you... (or to more strictly adhere to Pastafarian rules of conduct, make you walk the plank) (please refer to point 4)

 

Perhaps you should confront your beliefs and convert?  

2 minutes ago, travsformation said:

6) This discussion is going around in circles. My intention wasn't to start a religious debate, and although it was fun at first, no offence, but I'm beginning to feel it's a bit pointless to discuss this subject with someone capable of taking the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster so seriously (it feels like you take it more seriously than I do)

2

The movement was funny at first, but its ironic you say me taking it seriously is the problem when the problem i have is its members taking it seriously and trying to make it a serious thing with actual religious status by way of laughing at others beliefs.    

2 minutes ago, travsformation said:

So, in short...I think I'm going to cook some fresh pasta, defrost some homemade marinara sauce and drop out of this discussion. Even if a fellow Pastafarian shows up in this thread, I think all FSM-related topics are best left to FSM-related forums. It's a bit of a buzzkill to see something funny be taken so seriously and turned into such an ideologically charged (and in the end, tedious) debate...

 

Sorry you feel that way mate.  No offense meant, just healthy debate with a bit of cheeky emoticons along the way.

2 minutes ago, travsformation said:

May you some day be touched by His noodly appendages and may He unburden you from your moral load. And if He doesn't do so (because He forgets, is drunk, or doesn't care...as He has little interest in human affairs), the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is patient and tolerant and may offer you what you're looking for here: https://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/

R'amen

 

I guess you forgot about number 1 when you wrote that last part huh?  

Laters bro!