Moderator: All Things Mods
Roy Hunter wrote:First, they have to define their terms. What do they mean by validity?
We are Pastafarians: there are many of us out here; we share a roughly similar belief system; we share some of the same ways of observing our religion (eating pasta, talking like pirates, treating Friday as a day of rest, that sort of thing). According to Pastafarianism's flimsy moral standards and complete lack of dogma, that's all we need. We are satisfied that we have a religion, and it does what we want it to do.
If you are being asked for theological validity, then that must be someone applying the same standards to our religion as they do to their own religion. You can't do that with Pastafarianism: we have flimsy moral standards, a complete lack of dogma, and our deity is a bit of a slacker, truth be told. If they want, they can try Pastafarianism for thirty days with no obligation, and if they don't like it they can have their old religion back with no hard feelings, no hellfire, no damnation. That's about the best we can do.
If you are being asked for empirical or logical validity, or even scientific proof, of our religion, just remember the circumstances beind the revelation of our religion: it was a response to the teaching of ID in schools in Kansas. Our religion is just as valid, just as logical as that; more so in fact because we have a graph of pirates vs global warming on our side (whereas all the IDers have is pictures of Jesus riding a dinosaur). So maybe our religion is not as logical or empirical as science, but it's a lot more logical than some religions out there.
Just remember that you have weight of numbers on your side. Thousands of Pastafarians have no problem with the validity of our religion. If someone wants to question its validity, they need to give us a better argument than "I question the validity of your religion". That's like me questioning the validity of their underwear.
black bart wrote:Also you could get a Pastafarian Minister Certificate...
Westboro Baptist Church, anyone? There's less than 100 of them I think. We've had more than that online here at several points. Do they deny the 'validity' of the WBC? Because they'll probably get sued if they do.Aclor79 wrote:A1) Our small numbers make us invalid.
Define an actual belief. Define sincerity. No-one can prove their faith in Jesus / Yahweh / Whatever. Likewise the FSM: the evidence for our sincere beliefs is just as valid as theirs.Aclor79 wrote:A3) The religion was founded for satirical reasons, not as an actual belief system.
A4) No one sincerely believes in the FSM.
Yes, you can. Flimsy moral standards and lack of dogma, remember..?Aclor79 wrote:black bart wrote:Also you could get a Pastafarian Minister Certificate...
I've never been too sure of this. Can I be a minister if I'm not a legal adult?
TwistedSister wrote:You can't go wrong with a side of Bacon on your side.........
clh_hilary wrote:Pastafarianism is valid because it speaks the only truth in the universe, and worships the only real God.
Mad Willyum Bonney wrote:clh_hilary wrote:Pastafarianism is valid because it speaks the only truth in the universe, and worships the only real God.
TO ARRMS ! SOWN THEE ALARRMS !
MAN UR SHUPS YE BLAGGARRRRTS !!!!!
Users browsing this forum: iconoclastic cat @DU and 2 guests