Those catholics are very, very nice. An example of their kindness can be found here. Pastafarianists are mean old trolls who do not want children to be taught creationism in schools, and they all should die.

If someone tells you that your opinions and the opinions of everyone you agree with are stupid and for ignorant idiots, are you inclined to see the error of your ways? Hate responds to hate, this behaviour only amplifies the behaviour that you disapprove of.


Don't be stupid, you are extending my opinion to ridiculous extents so you can make fun of it. That is not true at all. It is fine to poke fun at things in the right context.

However wearing a spaghetti strainer in a license photo ONLY proves that the department that handles the licenses is very tolerant and good-willed. It does not prove that all religions are as much a joke as Pastafarianism...



I see it, but it is irrelevant. This act proves nothing against religions. The department obviously allowed this to happen, since Pastafarianism does NOT prescribe any required headgear (except perhaps pirate hats...) People are making this in to a much bigger deal and reading much more in to it.

Sure it is funny that he is wearing a spaghetti strainer, but it is no hit against religion.


As far as I can see there are as many atheists that are as hateful as any other religion.

We could stand here forever pointing out very specific examples... But in the end it would not solve anything when you can plainly see hate from both sides.




If you truly believe that is all there is to religion then you have a long way to go. Hats symbolise many things and serve many purposes. Heaven and Hell serve many purposes too, and are different even across sects of religions (even within Christianity you can see major differences between Catholics and Church of England).

One of the major examples I would like to point out is Sikhism, in which religious practitioners are prescribed to carry a special knife at all times. You are probably thinking "wtf that would cause all kinds of problems, why the hell do they need a knife? To stab people I assume! Probably a stupid reason anyhow." In actual fact the knife is a symbol representing the power of truth to cut through untruth, it is a reminder to keep them honest and good willed. A Sikh must also have the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their colour, caste or creed. You would think that you would have heard of such an extreme religion in which orthodox members wear knives, especially when they number more than 30 million. But the truth is they live peacefully, and although you may find them extreme, they cause you no trouble most probably. Among their "silly" beliefs is carrying the knife, a comb, and a bangle on them. They are symbolic, as are the head gear of other religions.

You should read about the actions of the Sikhs in WW2, they kicked ass!




All religions (or anti-religions) have all parts of the bell curve. Extremists, peaceful members, all kinds. As I said to Odlov, we could sit around all day pointing to highly specific examples of when they go too far, but the fact remains that in any religion 99% of the members cause no trouble. Your Spanish Inquisition example is one that we can look at, the Inquisition was tiny compared to the Catholic population of the time, so even in such extreme case you can see that it is a minority. You will also note that there is a specific context attached to the situation, and you cannot simply ignore it and analyse it in a modern context.

I'm very surprised at the variety of posts here. But I think these arguments are just silly. A hat was just a piece of cloth that you put on your head. And religions took this cloth, and molded It into their own symbol, Which is perfectly fine with me. But, don't go wearing around like you want everyone to see it. Because honestly, I could care less about wtf you believe in.

This... 'pastafarionism' or whatever is just a happy little thing to think about.
To me, it's more like a daily motto than a completely moronic religion.
Have fun, do good, live life to the fullest. And don't spend your time worrying.
So if this guy is willing to put a spaghetti strainer on his head to give an impression that he enjoys life. Then let him. Even if it is fucking stupid.

I myself, being agnostic. Think it's stupid on how people are whining over such a little thing.

Depends on the delivery. I bet many a Catholic was deconverted by George Carlin, and Carlin isn't subtle by any means. In this case, Niko Alm didn't "tell" anyone what a stupid moron they are, but hinted at the absurdity of certain beliefs by means of humorous act. I'm sorry Gorman isn't entertained.


Hardly. What's so different between Jim Jeffries taking a piss out of religion and this act of Niko Alm? He is poking fun at religion, and the law that accommodates it.


Why are you treating a humorous act as some sort of syllogism? It wasn't meant to 'prove' anything, but to highlight the ambiguity of the term "religion" and poke fun at its amusing customs.


The only one I see making this into a much bigger deal is you. Oh, and MajorKitty.


First you say it is an attack on religion, then you say it is no hit on religion
In any case, it's just another act making fun of religion. By itself it may not be a noticeable hit, but cumulatively humor does have impact.

...tl;dr: Trolls make you reflect upon what's important in your life. That's really all there is to it. If you really believe for the right reasons: you won't be bothered by spaghetti strainer wearing individuals. And that's not opening a door to "what's the right reasons for believing in Christianity" debate.

I can't take anyone seriously that takes this seriously. That's probably a good thing.

Yes, it does depend on the delivery.

I am glad that we can both agree that there are contexts where this behaviour is and isn't appropriate.

He abused the tolerance and goodwill of the law for a joke. I don't think that this should be taken lightly.

At the same time, he did not poke fun at religion. As I said before, Pastafarianism does not require hats, and this does not make Pastafarianism "equal" to other religions just because a gov't department allowed him to wear a hat.

Your argument seems to be;
> He was allowed to wear a stupid hat
> Therefore all hat wearing is stupid

As I explained to Hyde, that logic is flawed.
u->v and p->v does not mean u=p

Hopefully the technical definition can help you understand.

I am treating it such because Hyde said it was such.

It takes advantage of peoples good will, and I don't think it really pokes fun at religions at all anyway, just putting on a stupid hat and claiming it is for religious purposes makes one appear to be a dick, but it does not make fun at others. Nor do I find hat wearing 'amusing' in the first place.

What is so funny about hats

My posts are in responds to Hyde and others who are making this in to some victory of atheism against religion, which it is not. It is in fact a prank hat utilises religion as an excuse to allow it to be executed.

There is no real way to read anything deeper out of this, because his hat is not for religious purposes, nor does he claim to represent any real religion, if anything the only 'deeper meaning' is that we should stop people from abusing tolerance.

Cumulative humour?

Once again you try to make this out to be more than it is. It is a guy with a strainer on his head.
There is no hit on religion, but it is disrespectful.

If I ate some dog shit while telling people I am an atheist, it is no hit towards atheists, but it is disrespectful. This should be obvious.

...If you can't laugh at yourself now and again and take the light and humor out of something, you aren't living a fulfilled life by any means.

This guy was just poking fun. Finding it "Disrespectful" only shows a blatant sense of 0 humor :v