Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I like the fact that people claim it should be allowed because of religious freedom, but at the same time, the entire spaghetti thing was invented to mock / ridicule people protected by religious freedom.

Guess saying "You're an idiot!" in a nice way is somehow more acceptable.

The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.

Originally, it was a means to point out why teaching 'intelligent design' in science classes was a poor choice-slash-cynical move by people who think creationism should be taught in schools. Because why couldn't said intelligent designer be a flying spaghetti monster? There's no proof otherwise.

Now, granted, it's also enabled stuff like this to happen, and a high percentage of people who wear strainers or eyepatches in official photographs because of Pastafarianism have annoyingly smug expressions, but like others have said, there's no real way for the government to say 'knock it off' without judging the sincerity of her faith. And that's not really something I want the government doing.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

Well, if Scientology becomes the main religion of this world and you ask someone in 2000 years whether or not it was built upon solid foundations, this person would answer "Absolutely, yes".

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.

Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?

Exploit religious status = Wearing a sacred "hat"

This is your best argument. Very sad.

Mormons get to wear sacred underwear. See, even established "real" religions sound silly in a vacuum. Just think about the persecution that Mormons faced when John Smith showed up and said an angel gave him some gold plates to translate and Jesus was walking around N. America after he died. kind of the "Savior World Tour"; I'd buy a t-shirt for that one.

And yet that same "sincerity of belief" and "burden on belief" tests are employed over and over again when deciding exemptions and other things.

It seems that you are agreeing that it would be far easier and fairer to treat eveyone the same and either give everyone the same extra rights and protections, or remove them fron everyone.

A mad person may well have a devout belief in pixies that live in people's toes. That doesn't mean his beliefs are valid or in any way based on reality. Or indeed any more or less valid than the devoutly held beliefs of anyone else. Having a large number of people who all believe similar things does not make it any truer.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.

Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.

 LethalShade wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

Well, if Scientology becomes the main religion of this world and you ask someone in 2000 years whether or not it was built upon solid foundations, this person would answer "Absolutely, yes".

Ask any scientologist that now and they would say yes.

The same kinds of people who have been building up cults of personality based around religion or quasi-religions didn't just spring up in the last 100 years. People have recognised the excellent value religion has at gaining and keeping power and control and have used it to do so for tens of hundreds of years.

 agnosto wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.

Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.

The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

So you need an invisible, and imaginary being or beings to be a "real religion"? and how many years does it take to establish a "solid foundation"?

You do know that judaism says jesus didn't fulfill any of their prophocies, nor is there any evidence he really lived. the bible was written hundreds of years after the events it supposedly covers. And that is what you would call a solid foundation?

Just curious though, where does Buddhism fall on your chart?

sirlynchmob wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

So you need an invisible, and imaginary being or beings to be a "real religion"? and how many years does it take to establish a "solid foundation"?

You do know that judaism says jesus didn't fulfill any of their prophocies, nor is there any evidence he really lived. the bible was written hundreds of years after the events it supposedly covers. And that is what you would call a solid foundation?

Just curious though, where does Buddhism fall on your chart?

Yom Kippur (I probably spelled that wrong) was actually fulfilled by Jesus when he died and lots of old testament prophecies were fulfilled when Jesus came

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.

Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.

The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf

Sure, after you offered your child up for sacrifice or he killed most of humanity in a flood or killed all the first born sons in a city..

I like this from Exodus:
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations"

Sure, I'll forgive you, after I punish your unborn children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for something that you did that ticked me off.

The story of jesus was cobbled together from many, many previous myths specifically to fulfil prophesies. You can actually see pretty much word for word copy pastas (sorry ) from earlier religious and non-religious works in order to do this.

 agnosto wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.

Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.

The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf

Sure, after you offered your child up for sacrifice or he killed most of humanity in a flood or killed all the first born sons in a city..

I like this from Exodus:
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations"

Sure, I'll forgive you, after I punish your unborn children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for something that you did that ticked me off.

He gave Jonah and Ninivah a second chance, and Moses and David and several other people. Don't pick quotes out of the book without substantial context added to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
The story of jesus was cobbled together from many, many previous myths specifically to fulfil prophesies. You can actually see pretty much word for word copy pastas (sorry ) from earlier religious and non-religious works in order to do this.

I'd like to see that proof so I can not believe it and go about worshipping my God while you revel in your pasta

Of course you can worship your god, your jesus or whatever. You're (fortunately) free to do so.
Just don't think of it as more legitimate than any other god or messiah (or absence of it).

 LethalShade wrote:
Of course you can worship your god, your jesus or whatever. You're (fortunately) free to do so.
Just don't think of it as more legitimate than any other god or messiah.

I don't think that's how it works. Believing in my God requires me to only believe he is God and there are none other. Using liberal equality logic, I should do like you say, but I'll just keep believing mine is the only one and let you guys believe whatever you want to.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
Of course you can worship your god, your jesus or whatever. You're (fortunately) free to do so.
Just don't think of it as more legitimate than any other god or messiah.

I don't think that's how it works. Believing in my God requires me to only believe he is God and there are none other. Using liberal equality logic, I should do like you say, but I'll just keep believing mine is the only one and let you guys believe whatever you want to.

Yeah, this works too.

If jesus was really Messiah, then why are there still jews? Surely they would recognize their messiah and follow him.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page26.htm

sirlynchmob wrote:
If jesus was really Messiah, then why are there still jews? Surely they would recognize their messiah and follow him.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page26.htm

Because that wouldn't fulfill the end times prophecies.

Edit: The article is interesting, but the Author doesn't understand the sheer amount of metaphorical meaning in the Bible and took it in a face value, literal way

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


Alternatively it is now being used to highlight some of the unwarranted special considerations that religions still receive.

Are they unwarranted though? If a religion calls for someone's head to be covered, ala Sheiks, what is so wrong in making reasonable accommodations for that belief? If a Muslim must pray at a specific time of day, is anyone really gonna be hurt by letting him walk out of the building for a few minutes to pray? We already allow smoke and potty breaks. Why not pray breaks? Obviously we cannot accommodate every religious belief. If your religion says you can't handle pig, maybe you shouldn't be working at a slaughter house? But I fail to see what the flaw is in taking consideration for beliefs people have when going about day to day life.

We all know the Pastafarianism, while hilariously good at pointing out the absurdity of trying to pass religion off as science, is not a real religion.

Of course at the same time, people being less than perfect, do we really want the government to decide what is a real religion? Really it just comes down to what qualifies as 'reasonable' with little judgement passed on the belief itself. As Chongara points out, we're not mind readers around here and maybe our subjective thoughts on what qualifies as a 'real belief' should be left out of making policy decisions.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.

Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?

Can we apply this to all groups that this applies to? That'd be a field day.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The really funny thing is asking yourself why people even thought of the spaghetti monster, i.e. mock others for their religion instead of minding their own business.

Maybe people saw religion having legal yet undue influence over the lives of people who either follow a different or no religion and decided if it was legal for them to exploit their religious status, why not use those exact same methods to fight back and expose what is going on?

Can we apply this to all groups that this applies to? That'd be a field day.

Id really like to know what you people mean by "exploit religious status"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Edit: The article is interesting, but the Author doesn't understand the sheer amount of metaphorical meaning in the Bible and took it in a face value, literal way

So... literally being a dude sleeping with another dude is cool, as long as I don't metaphorically do it? Literally having tattoos are much better than metaphorical tats, gotcha.



On Topic, I think that, while wearing a colander is ridiculous, being allowed to wear other head coverings like turbans, burqa/hijabs and the like are just as ridiculous. It's a piece of Identification, not a statement of your religious beliefs. Just about the only head covering that I can see really being allowed in a government issued ID photo, is the yarmulka, simply for the fact that you really can't see it in most facial photos and it really does nothing to obscure the face/head.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I think the difference is that the creators of the FSM (and things like Scientology) admitted to their "religion" being a fake. It's entire life is a farce. Meanwhile, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. were all built upon a solid foundation, meant to be believed.

So yes, Christianity, Islam, Judaism...all real, legit religions.
Church of FSM, Scientology...jokes and cults.

If you truly can't see the difference, nobody on here is going to be able to help you. If you're just trolling...then bravo.

Christianity started out as a cult created by the followers of Jesus who decided that the priests of Judaism were harshing their buzz. The entire new testament of the bible was written because people were tired of the angry, mean daddy God.

Seriously, read how these "established and totes real" religions got their starts. Think, actually critically think, about how it must have sounded to people of their time and BAM, instant FSM and Scientology connection.

The old testament actually had a lot of forgiveness on God's behalf

Sure, after you offered your child up for sacrifice or he killed most of humanity in a flood or killed all the first born sons in a city..

I like this from Exodus:
“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations"

Sure, I'll forgive you, after I punish your unborn children, grandchildren and great grandchildren for something that you did that ticked me off.

He gave Jonah and Ninivah a second chance, and Moses and David and several other people. Don't pick quotes out of the book without substantial context added to them.

Yes, they were given second chances after they were suitably punished. The difference between the old testament and the new testament is the kinder, gentler God that came about after he had and lost a son. One could argue that we're more like God than many suspect; the hellraising of youth followed by the mellowness of middle age, after children.

I can pull substantial quotes from the entire volume (plural if you want to look at different versions, even Aramaic and Greek if you want that and can read it). My undergrad work was focused on ancient European history and I wound up taking several classes on comparative religion; not to mention being reared southern baptist has provided me with "exposure" to the hellfire and brimstone versions of the bible. I can also draw correlation between fledging Christianity and the Cult of Mythra as well as the Babylonian God, Tammuz, or Damuz before that as a Sumerian God, who actually is mentioned in Ezekial, 8:14-15.

Interesting stuff, religion.

On topic, I'm surprised a Satanist hasn't tried to wear a goat skin or something for a picture yet.

Mormons get to wear sacred underwear. See, even established "real" religions sound silly in a vacuum. Just think about the persecution that Mormons faced when John Smith showed up and said an angel gave him some gold plates to translate and Jesus was walking around N. America after he died. kind of the "Savior World Tour"; I'd buy a t-shirt for that one.

So, my underwear is holy, particularly the older pairs.

 LordofHats wrote:

Are they unwarranted though? If a religion calls for someone's head to be covered, ala Sheiks, what is so wrong in making reasonable accommodations for that belief? If a Muslim must pray at a specific time of day, is anyone really gonna be hurt by letting him walk out of the building for a few minutes to pray? We already allow smoke and potty breaks. Why not pray breaks? Obviously we cannot accommodate every religious belief. If your religion says you can't handle pig, maybe you shouldn't be working at a slaughter house? But I fail to see what the flaw is in taking consideration for beliefs people have when going about day to day life.

I agree with some of this, but not all of it.

For instance, I strongly disagree with the recent court cases awarding several (IIRC, a couple hundred) thousands of dollars to people who are Muslim truck drivers working for an alcoholic beverage distributor, based on their "religious belief" against alcohol. To me, it's the same issue as you bring up regarding the handling of pigs. You shouldn't even apply for the job, knowing full well your religious "requirements" will run contrary to the job. Ohh, and in reality, the mainline Islamic belief regarding alcohol, is that it is not to be consumed... nothing against handling it.


But, I disagree with allowing "prayer breaks" because the majority of people's work involved economics; ie, they are sales people, or work in an office where things are done/made/moved in order to make the company money. In short, your job, most of the time is to protect and/or enhance the economic well-being of the company you work for. Having additional breaks for religious beliefs runs counter to this. Also, we don't really have smoke/potty breaks... At least in the US, you get a short break per a certain number of hours worked, plus a "lunch" break. What you do during those breaks is on you as an individual.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:


Edit: The article is interesting, but the Author doesn't understand the sheer amount of metaphorical meaning in the Bible and took it in a face value, literal way

So... literally being a dude sleeping with another dude is cool, as long as I don't metaphorically do it? Literally having tattoos are much better than metaphorical tats, gotcha.



On Topic, I think that, while wearing a colander is ridiculous, being allowed to wear other head coverings like turbans, burqa/hijabs and the like are just as ridiculous. It's a piece of Identification, not a statement of your religious beliefs. Just about the only head covering that I can see really being allowed in a government issued ID photo, is the yarmulka, simply for the fact that you really can't see it in most facial photos and it really does nothing to obscure the face/head.

If someone's is going to be wearing their turban 100% of the time they're outside it's not like a turban-less photo is going to be accurate. Even then it's a question of priorities. Is making everyone conform to government ID laws fully a higher priority than allowing people reasonable space to feel like their beliefs are being respected and that they can practice them unhindered? Well I'm in the camp that says that perfect adherence to photo ID laws is the reasonable thing to have as a lower priority.

If this were a different question: What's the higher priority? Keeping people alive and their hearts in their chest or making sure that people feel like their beliefs are being respected, I'm probably gonna go with the hearts not being ripped out thing. The government is inclined to agree and that's why any practicing ancient Aztecs would likely find that police would cramp their style.

The headgear thing is a relatively minor procedural issue so I'm more than comfortable with the fact that government will let people wear whatever people say their religion demands they do.

(Still doesn't mean I'm gonna take that FSM stuff seriously)

I agree with some of this, but not all of it.

For instance, I strongly disagree with the recent court cases awarding several (IIRC, a couple hundred) thousands of dollars to people who are Muslim truck drivers working for an alcoholic beverage distributor, based on their "religious belief" against alcohol. To me, it's the same issue as you bring up regarding the handling of pigs. You shouldn't even apply for the job, knowing full well your religious "requirements" will run contrary to the job. Ohh, and in reality, the mainline Islamic belief regarding alcohol, is that it is not to be consumed... nothing against handling it.

What's the full story here, exactly? This sounds straight out of ForwardsFromGrandma

This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?

 agnosto wrote:


Yes, they were given second chances after they were suitably punished. The difference between the old testament and the new testament is the kinder, gentler God that came about after he had and lost a son. One could argue that we're more like God than many suspect; the hellraising of youth followed by the mellowness of middle age, after children.

He didn't lose a son. Jesus had to die to become the sacrifice the people of Israel needed to truly remove their sins.

can pull substantial quotes from the entire volume (plural if you want to look at different versions, even Aramaic and Greek if you want that and can read it). My undergrad work was focused on ancient European history and I wound up taking several classes on comparative religion; not to mention being reared southern baptist has provided me with "exposure" to the hellfire and brimstone versions of the bible. I can also draw correlation between fledging Christianity and the Cult of Mythra as well as the Babylonian God, Tammuz, or Damuz before that as a Sumerian God, who actually is mentioned in Ezekial, 8:14-15.

Interesting stuff, religion.

How dare you draw correlation between my holy God and that Blasphemy But seriously, don't.

On topic, I'm surprised a Satanist hasn't tried to wear a goat skin or something for a picture yet.

Give it ten minutes

 Chongara wrote:

What's the full story here, exactly? This sounds straight out of ForwardsFromGrandma

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/

This case here.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

What's the full story here, exactly? This sounds straight out of ForwardsFromGrandma

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/23/240000-jury-award-to-muslim-truck-drivers-who-were-fired-for-refusing-to-transport-alcohol/

This case here.

Or that woman who refused to give them gays their marriage license...

Technically speaking, as much as I don't agree with LGBT anything, that woman should've stepped down in accordance to Biblical law


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread got serious. How does a thread about someone wearing a strainer for a hat get serious?

When we all know how to have intelligent conversations