FSM believer banned from school

Before commenting, I find it necessary to post the picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as incorporated into the article. I laughed out loud.

http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/1652/spaghettimonsterqu6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Now, I agree with you. Two things are clear

1. The "religion" was made up for the purpose of making a statement. It is not legitimate.

2. The student's dress was disruptive to the educational environment.

With regard to ID, which is mentioned, the student is clearly misinterpreting what the concept of ID is, or is supposed to be. Real "ID" is the notion that there was an unknown intelligent being who designed the universe, who created it. This is supported by variious structures in nature that exhibit characteristics of being designed by an intelligent being (geometic and numerical patterns, symmetry, etc.). Most responsible IDers would stop there, and not try to use and pervert the notion into an excuse for teaching Creationism.

My real problem with this kid, though, is that he's sort of bashing all religions...mocking them. When you equate deeply held religious beliefs and principles with flying meatballs and pasta, people are going to get kind of pissed.

Not me though. I fear the moster. I've heard his tenaticles are very dangerous, and delicious with Parmesan cheese.

Before commenting, I find it necessary to post the picture of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as incorporated into the article. I laughed out loud.

http://img453.imageshack.us/img453/1652/spaghettimonsterqu6.jpg ( http://imageshack.us)

That is hilarious.

Vinea

Blasphemy! :lol: :lol: :lol:

(Sorry, that was bad. :( )

Though shalt not blasphem the FSM. He will wrap you up and swallow you whole. You'll be covered in starch and dragged down into his layer of boiling water...and garlic.

What concerns me most about this though is how does he punish sinners - the FSM?

Does he overcharge them at bad tourist rip-off Trattorias where waiters pinch your bum for all eternity?

Though shalt not blasphem the FSM. He will wrap you up and swallow you whole. You'll be covered in starch and dragged down into his layer of boiling water...and garlic.

See above.

Wearing pirate garb won't be allowed in schools... but he might also argue that other displays of religious clothing in school ought to be banned... as they've done in Britain (correct me if I'm wrong, here)...

You are walking down a very dangerous path Segovius and SDW. Delineating between "real" and "false" religions based on what you interpret to be the nature of their revelations leaves you on pretty shaky ground. Making sure that someone really believes in a particular religion in order to have free expression of it again is quite dangerous.

Now, a sword is a weapon and obviously shouldn't be brought to school. However, pirate clothing should be allowed unless the school also wants to ban every other form of religious attire.

Here's a better link: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770328123

And this is what the kid looks like: http://cmsimg.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B0&Date=20070329&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=70328123&Ref=AR&maxW=313&border=1

It was an eye-patch and an inflatable saber. Surprisingly, it wasn't the inflatable saber that was the issue with the assistant principal and teacher but rather the eye-patch. They claimed the eye-patch was disruptive. Yeah, right. Maybe if the dumb teacher doesn't bitch at him to take it off 4 times it isn't disruptive at all! Give me a break here.

Wow. That's amazing that BR and I typed exactly the same thing! I guess I should've just said "What BR said."

Wow. That's amazing that BR and I typed exactly the same thing! I guess I should've just said "What BR said."

I am guessing 1 in a billion probability.

You are walking down a very dangerous path Segovius and SDW. Delineating between "real" and "false" religions based on what you interpret to be the nature of their revelations leaves you on pretty shaky ground. Making sure that someone really believes in a particular religion in order to have free expression of it again is quite dangerous.

Now, a sword is a weapon and obviously shouldn't be brought to school. However, pirate clothing should be allowed unless the school also wants to ban every other form of religious attire.

Here's a better link: http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770328123

And this is what the kid looks like: http://cmsimg.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=B0&Date=20070329&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=70328123&Ref=AR&maxW=313&border=1

It was an eye-patch and an inflatable saber. Surprisingly, it wasn't the inflatable saber that was the issue with the assistant principal and teacher but rather the eye-patch. They claimed the eye-patch was disruptive. Yeah, right. Maybe if the dumb teacher doesn't bitch at him to take it off 4 times it isn't disruptive at all! Give me a break here.

Fair enough, but that is not really the point.

Look at it this way: say I see what appears to be a ghost at the foot of my bed. Now this apparition could be many things...it could be the spirit of my Great Aunt Hortense, it could be an hallucination, a trick of the light, it could be that I am stark-bollock mad or maybe I just downed 20 tabs of acid.

None of that is the point. It is IRRELEVANT how I interpret the experience - that could be right or wrong - the point is that I HAD an experience.

Now if someone who does not believe in ghosts comes along and says "I saw a ghost too - it was shaped like a Flying Spaghetti Monster" and if they then go on to equate their experience with mine, then - IF they did not have such an experience but are trying to make a point -I am going to call them a complete and utter wanker.

Why?

Because they made it up.

Because they insult my intelligence by assuming I have made my experience up also.

Because they refuse - or perhaps cannot - enter a debate about what I actually saw and what it may be.

But re the school and uniforms, I agree. Certainly if someone wants to wear whatever they like then they should...I support Muslims wearing veils to schools although I disagree with them so why not pirates?

We all need to actually take a step back imo and take stock of our 'progress' - perhaps we can also gain something by checking to see if we have lost anything. Seems to be life was simpler and less complicated even a decade ago.

I say let the kid wear his pirate costume. It's not harming anyone and if you can believe that Moses parted the Red Sea and let Muslim students leave class for their prayers, then you shouldn't have a problem with letting him wear his pirate costume.

Sebastian

Or, hey, we could just eliminate public schooling altogether and let private schooling with a voucher system take over. Hey! :smokey:

Or, hey, they could just stop being hypocrites. Hey! :devil:

Sebastian

Hypocrite? Why? Was he not serious about school vouchers? It does solve this problem - each school is free to set its own rules, which may or may not be religious in nature, if they are private.

Hypocrite? Why? Was he not serious about school vouchers? It does solve this problem - each school is free to set its own rules, which may or may not be religious in nature, if they are private.
I wasn't saying that was hypocritical. I was saying the current system is, and it would be a lot easier if they weren't hypocrites now then to switch the entire system over to private schools.

Sebastian

Please define a "real" religion versus a "made up" religion!

A real religion is the result of the attempt to interpret an experience which appears to the percipient to be transcendent.

The experience could be 'mystical', seeing a UFO, a ghost, talking with God etc...the point is not the framework but the apprehension that the experience is 'out of this world'.

Religion is the attempt after the fact to make this 'out of the world' experience fit into the 'real world'.

It has nothing to do with the framework. Contradicting religions all fir this definition - that's why they can disagree and still be religions.

A 'false relgion' is one not based on an 'out of this world' experience. It is one in fact where someone who has never had such an experience and is so limited (or arrogant) as to believe this means one cannot exist decides to 'make one up'.

So.

Real religion is 'experiencing something transcendent and trying to make it mundane'

False religion is '[being only capable of] experiencing only the mundane so denying the transcendent'

I often think the current woeful crop of militant atheists are actually jealous and disappointed that they have no such experience and this is what drives them. Like the sort of men who hate women because they cannot get laid when really all the while the more hate they foster the less likely it is to ever happen and it becomes a self-proving system.

FSM was created with the express purpose of mocking other religions. This is not the case for Scientology, Christianity or any other religion. It is specifically a parody religion / mock religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody_religion). Your attempt to shoehorn Scientology, Christianity, etc. into the same category is wasteful.

So in essence, FSM was created with a far nobler purpose.

Perhaps, from your perspective, that is the case. However, that also bars it from freedom of religion protection.

Perhaps, from your perspective, that is the case. However, that also bars it from freedom of religion protection.

I'm not an adherent and I'm only speculating. I'm not fucking arrogant enough to decide what is a real or false religion.

I won't disagree that according to your standards FSM is a false religion. I just don't agree that your standards, or mine for that matter, should be held up as the absolute right way of measuring the veracity of a religion.

Regardless of the motivation for its creation, the tenets of FSMism are entirely innocuous at worst and rather good for humanity at best. If a kid wants to wear an eye-patch to school, Jesus Christ, just let him.

ha!

a real religion vs a false one. Stands about as much chance of having a conclusion as debating what is art and what is not.

I have an opinion (about art and religion), and in this particular instance it is followers of the FSM are by default going to be more interesting, more intelligent, more creative, more spiritual and alot less of a pain in the ass in the world than the majority of followers of other religions.

Fuck cause, the effect is worthwhile.

All you can do is define your terms and adhere to them. That is what I did with my idea of 'transcendent experience' versus 'made up' systems. It may not be correct but it is a model for reference.

If the Flavian Hypothesis is correct, then Christianity would no longer qualify as a "real religion" according to your definition of "real".

http://pithiness.blogspot.com/2006/06/bible-as-roman-satire.html

I'm going to chalk this kid up for pulling a stunt. And when you pull a stunt you could get disciplined. There's no news here.

ha!

a real religion vs a false one. Stands about as much chance of having a conclusion as debating what is art and what is not.

No, it doesn't. Art is always considered such by its creator, no matter how others feel about it. The FSM, on the other hand, is explicitly considered not a religion, but a parody thereof, by its very creators.

i disagree, Art and Religion are not absolutes. (in response to Chucker)

Whether an Artist or founder of a religion decides unto himself whether his art or religion is genuine or phony is irrelavent. Because once the art or religion has passed from him to others, it is for the others to decide if it is genuine or phony, and he has lost total control over the creation except for his own opinion.

That is why IMO the only person to understand Jesus' message was Jesus himself (notwithstanding my own opinion of his actual physical reality) and it doesn't matter what Jesus says or does - because once he tells someone this message or opinion, he has lost control of what it means be it genuine or phony.

Therefore religion (and Art) , being a 'fluid' evolving neverending 'relative' as opposed to an 'absolute' one off teaching is not about what is written or spoken by its founder, but what it develops into. In essence Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all the others are not about what Jesus, Moses, Muhammed said or did, but what the followers of such are doing RIGHT HERE and RIGHT NOW.

And thats why, IMO such religions utterly stink today and should be abandoned - perhaps in favour of something militarily benign as the FSM.

also, its not exactly fair to compare the (perhaps phony) religion of the FSM to religions that have been established for several thousand years.

Because when Jesus, Muhammed and no doubt, Moses appeared on the scene, no-one took them seriously either - because they were comparing the 'new' with a well established 'old'. By default, the 'new' has no history or tradition, theology or wisdom, and as such will always be inferior to what is established. It takes hundreds of years and millions of people to create substance from the ideas of one or two people. Christianity didnt appear fully formed overnight following the resurrection or ascention of Jesus did it? it gained traction by absorbing the old and reworking it with something maybe better. Jesus didn't do it, the followers did. The FSM isn't going to do it, possibly the followers will.

Infact, when Christianity et all appeared, it was nothing but the ideas of a singular or small group of likeminded people, compared to the established religions of the Greeks, Romans, Indians, these new religions would have been as much as a pisstake for explaining the 'genuine search for answering questions' as the FSM is today.

if FSM is totally a pisstake, it will be gone within 10 years - as would Christianity and Islam if they were totally pisstakes aswell - however, if the FSM draws in the 'right' kind of creative talents that actually do something worthwhile with its meaning and theologies, then it stands as much chance as any other religion or teaching as being a well established religion in a few hundred years time, with millions of followers.

As I said before, its nothing to do with the intents of what the founder of the religion intended (it is probably meant as a cheap pisstake IMO) but what the people DO with it when its in their hands.

Whether an Artist or founder of a religion decides unto himself whether his art or religion is genuine or phony is irrelavent. Because once the art or religion has passed from him to others, it is for the others to decide if it is genuine or phony, and he has lost total control over the creation except for his own opinion.

Okay, fair enough. But is there an FSM believer who is actually serious about it? I.e., has someone converted what was once a parody into something genuine?

As far as I can tell, we are all assuming that this student didn't walk into school seriously expressing "this is what I believe in", but rather ridiculing others' beliefs. Which freedom of expression/thought/speech/opinion may entitle one to, but which is not covered by freedom of religion.

So, whether Muslims may wear their hijabs/chadors/etc. when going to school is mainly a question of just how far religious freedom extends to schools. Whether FSM advocates wear pirate clothing, however, is one about freedom of expression, unless that particular advocate happens to be serious about their beliefs, of which, again, I have seen zero evidence thus far.

You are right that the FSM movement could develop into a religion. But as it currently stands, most if not all followers are not at all, in fact, proposing this. And I suspect the student isn't either.

By default, the 'new' has no history or tradition, theology or wisdom, and as such will always be inferior to what is established.

Sounds reasonable but in fact though, there is no 'new'.

Muhammad did not bring anything new...he was reviving the previous Monotheistic tradition that had fallen into decay in Mecca.

At the time of his birth there were groups of believers in Mecca (the hanifs who believed exactly what Muslims later believed and had done so for a very long time.

Similarly with Jesus...the original teaching (not the Church's Pauline version) existed long before Jesus which is why you find it so easy to find examples and parallels in earlier myths.

the best thing about having the last post in a rapid conversation, is that you never really know if you've rendered everyone speechless with your amazing intellect and insight, or if you've made yourself public enemy again :lol:

Or sent everyone to sleep...

:D

ha, tricked you into making another post, now you're the last....

Why shouldn't we be able to mock religion? Everything else in the world is. In fact based on it's lack of evidence, confused morals, questionable ethics and the complete dispensement of logic required I say it is worthy of a great deal of mocking. IMO. :)

All hail His Noodly Appendage! :lol:

Why shouldn't we be able to mock religion? Everything else in the world is. In fact based on it's lack of evidence, confused morals, questionable ethics and the complete dispensement of logic required I say it is worthy of a great deal of mocking. IMO. :)

All hail His Noodly Appendage! :lol:

Why shouldn't we be able to mock you?

Mock gays?

Ethnic Minorities?

You need to ask yourself why you feel the need to mock anything and what makes some things - in your eyes - more 'mockable' than others...and ask what good can come of it.

You may want to mock - and you are free to make that choice...I don;t want to personally be like that or live in a world like that...and that's what religion is in some ways; an escape from 'the world'.

So let those of us who want to escape go and do it and you can mock from wherever you want to be.

Maybe mock is quite a strong word, but the basis of my point was that religion has this forcefield that comes up when anyone criticises or laughs at it. It is such a powerful concept that in some ways it should be scrutinised more. And if we didn't mock anything we would live in a very humourless world indeed, it is the basis of the vast majority of comedy. I wouldn't want to live in that world. IMO.

Well, that's different - I agree with you.

If something is true - which religion claims to be - then it should withstand rigorous scrutiny and should be subjected to it.

People don't try to stop people questioning whether the world is flat anymore - and when they did it was religion that was at the root of it. This is the sort of thing I object to -religion as a control system and oppressor...unfortunately it is all too common.

My point is that this is not what religion essentially is or should be. It's like people opposing alcohol because some people are alcoholics; it's not the alcohol or the religion that is the problem but some people's 'disposition'.

RAmen.

Amen-Ra

What makes you think that religion isn't "just any form of belief"?

What makes you think it isn't a potato?

Hypocrite? Why? Was he not serious about school vouchers? It does solve this problem - each school is free to set its own rules, which may or may not be religious in nature, if they are private.

Could you imagine the number of students clamoring to get into a real Flying Spaghetti Monster religious school! :D

What makes you think that religion isn't "just any form of belief"?

It provides sense, structure and comfort for those seeking said balms in a universe that otherwise provides none. It can unite or divide cultures and individuals, and prop up or ruin whole civilizations.

In short... it has more "legs" than 'American Idol', but just because it's been around a long time doesn't necessarily make it true.

I think 'the problem,' at least in the West, is that we tend to reflexively divorce 'religions' of their corporateness. We have reduced a 'religion' to a personal set of beliefs -- which is hardly the point of 'religion' in general. A 'religion' -- to be 'real' [read: meaningful] ought to have some metaphysical baggage and address issues of the One vs. Many, etc.

But when Christianity, for one example, is reduced to a 'general level of niceness,' the talk of other religions by comparison is pretty meaningless.

(which is also what makes the FSM a fairly low-brow strawman)

...or Holy Day of Obligation ( http://www.talklikeapirate.com/).

There's even a widget ( http://www.tuaw.com/2006/10/03/widget-watch-english-to-pirate-translator/) to help the converts.

This is not the same as members of established religions wearing special garb to school and whether they should do so is a separate debate.

Why is not the same?

Because someone sat down and made it up to 'make a point'. That person was not a spiritual 'seeker' who had reached an answer (or thought they had) but someone who made the whole thing up to prove a dubious and rather lame point.

If the creator of Pastafarianism had had a revelation - nothing earth shattering, doesn't even have to be true, could be drug-induced or anything from Joseph Smith to Pat Robertson - then I would agree it is a religion - whether it is correct would be another debate, but it should have the same rights as any other.
Why should a "spiritual 'seeker'", or those who follow one, get special privileges which others don't?

Why should wearing special clothing, because you believe in "something" (anything, apparently, just so long as you believe in this something strongly, with squinty-eyed fierceness or with a rapturous beatific smile on your face) symbolized by that clothing, be any more or less protected a right than wearing clothing to express a different belief or lack of belief?

Do you think that belief in "revealed truth" is better, more worthy of special protection and regard and respect, than, say, beliefs arrived at through evidence and deduction?

Do you think that belief, in that "I don't care about evidence or science, I know the TRVTH in MY HEART" sort of way, must be granted special accommodation that skepticism doesn't receive?

FSM is parody, and the pirate tie-in is part of the parody. But there is sincere belief going on here: belief that religion is superstition, belief that religion can be awfully damned silly (when it isn't busy being downright dangerous), belief that the world would be a better place without religion and superstition. Many FSM "followers" sincerely do believe in those things.

The history of the crucifix is that it was a device for execution by slow torture. Should people who wear crosses around their necks be judged by the sincerity of their advocacy for that particular method of capital punishment? Somehow I don't think you'd hold Christians accountable to such a nuance-free, symbolism-free, back story-free interpretation of the crucifix.

Why, therefore, should the kid with the pirate costume be judged by how sincerely he believes in actual preaching pirates and high-carb deities? The pirate costume symbolizes something he probably does believe in -- which you need to have the back-story of the FSM phenomenon to understand.

How sincere is this particular kid? How should I know? Why should you or anyone else care? We're not in the business of judging how sincere cross-wearing Christians or veil-wearing Muslims really are about their publicly-paraded religious symbolism, are we?

What seems downright weird to me is that you seem to be saying that if this kid were actually nutty enough to actually believe in a Higher Pasta, and if he had that oh-so-devotional and reverent feeling in his heart when he dutifully donned his pirate regalia... then and only then should be be allowed to wear it.

What seems downright weird to me is that you seem to be saying that if this kid were actually nutty enough to actually believe in a Higher Pasta, and if he had that oh-so-devotional and reverent feeling in his heart when he dutifully donned his pirate regalia... then and only then should be be allowed to wear it.

Well, aren't all religions nutty if you don't believe in them?

Why should a "spiritual 'seeker'", or those who follow one, get special privileges which others don't?

No-one is saying they should that I am aware of.

Why should wearing special clothing, because you believe in "something" (anything, apparently, just so long as you believe in this something strongly, with squinty-eyed fierceness or with a rapturous beatific smile on your face) symbolized by that clothing, be any more or less protected a right than wearing clothing to express a different belief or lack of belief?

It shouldn't. Again...who is saying it should?

Do you think that belief in "revealed truth" is better, more worthy of special protection and regard and respect, than, say, beliefs arrived at through evidence and deduction?

No, I think it is less.

All 'revealed truth' imo should be subordinate to logic. Actually, until very recently (last few hundred years) this was the case with Islam but not other religions such as Christianity.

This is why Islam as a religion made many 'secular' scientific advances and the Church opposed scientific advance.

Unfortunately this is no longer the case and both religions are no longer subordinate to logic.

Do you think that belief, in that "I don't care about evidence or science, I know the TRVTH in MY HEART" sort of way, must be granted special accommodation that skepticism doesn't receive?

No, I think that this kind of belief is ok in it's own area - ie religion but fails when taken into the scientific logical arena. Oth, I think skepticism fails when taken into what we may call the metaphysical area.

It's different tools for different jobs and horses for courses I'm afraid. Anyone from either side of the fence who says that one tool does every job is the person I would call a fundie.

FSM is parody, and the pirate tie-in is part of the parody. But there is sincere belief going on here: belief that religion is superstition, belief that religion can be awfully damned silly (when it isn't busy being downright dangerous), belief that the world would be a better place without religion and superstition. Many FSM "followers" sincerely do believe in those things.

Well, they have a right to believe in those things - I am just arguing that they do not need to carbon-copy what they are opposing. Or, if they do, then do it right. The FSM is not an equivalence and it would be against logic - and I am arguing for logic - to claim it is.

I have heard it argued that Muhammad's revelation (for example) was the result of a mental disorder. I have heard it argued that he did not have a revelation but composed the Qur'an himself.

I do not agree with either of these but support the right for the argument and regard them as legitimate critiques. I disagree with the FSM ONLY because it claims to be an equivalence but it is not...if the creators tomorrow claim that it WAS revealed and not made-up but they have not said so till now then I will also support it as a legitimate equivalence.

Of course I would seek to disprove that it was revealed but then that is what debate is all abut. As it stands now we are comparing chalk and cheese.

The history of the crucifix is that it was a device for execution by slow torture. Should people who wear crosses around their necks be judged by the sincerity of their advocacy for that particular method of capital punishment? Somehow I don't think you'd hold Christians accountable to such a nuance-free, symbolism-free, back story-free interpretation of the crucifix.

Not sure the point here but actually I would lay the charge that wearing of a crucifix is hypocrisy as presumably the wearer believes that Christ did not die on the cross...so why have one? Why not a model empty tomb instead?

Why, therefore, should the kid with the pirate costume be judged by how sincerely he believes in actual preaching pirates and high-carb deities? The pirate costume symbolizes something he probably does believe in -- which you need to have the back-story of the FSM phenomenon to understand.

As I said above - and you can check - it is not the garb I object to. I think that anyone should wear what they like and they don't need any justification, religious or otherwise to do so.

I do not agree with the wearing of the hijab for example as I feel it is un-Islamic but I pay greater allegiance to the ideal of not telling people what to wear so they can do as they like. Same with the pirate outfit.

How sincere is this particular kid? How should I know? Why should you or anyone else care? We're not in the business of judging how sincere cross-wearing Christians or veil-wearing Muslims really are about their publicly-paraded religious symbolism, are we?

I don't care. I have confined my comments to the idea of the FWM meme in the abstract.

What seems downright weird to me is that you seem to be saying that if this kid were actually nutty enough to actually believe in a Higher Pasta, and if he had that oh-so-devotional and reverent feeling in his heart when he dutifully donned his pirate regalia... then and only then should be be allowed to wear it.

Well, I can't comment on what you think 'seem' to be saying. This 'seems' to be subordinate to the conditioning ad established filters you have built up over your lifetime and of course, I do not know what these might be and so it would be unwise to comment on why this appears in this way from your perspective.

I would say though that it probably wise to entertain the possibility that your perspective is perhaps not - in much the same way the FSM is perhaps not - to be used as an equivalence to 'Holy Writ'.

I was wondering when someone would finally bring up "Bob" Dobbs... Guess these kids are too young to know better. :lol:

Pirate costumes dude are the key marketing point.

Vinea

No-one is saying they should that I am aware of...

...It shouldn't. Again...who is saying it should?

...No, I think it is less...
You'll have to forgive me if, when you start out saying this kind of stuff...
This is not the same as members of established religions wearing special garb to school and whether they should do so is a separate debate.

Why is not the same?

Because someone sat down and made it up to 'make a point'...

If the creator of Pastafarianism had had a revelation - nothing earth shattering, doesn't even have to be true, could be drug-induced or anything from Joseph Smith to Pat Robertson...

As it is, no such revelation occurred and someone made the whole thing up.

So it is intellectually dishonest...UNLESS...one can prove that Moses, Muhammad, Jesus et all, all sat down and made it up to make a point or some other reason.

They don't even try to prove this...at least argue it if it's what you believe...as it is it is just silly schoolyard games.
...It sure as hell makes it sound like you're talking about treating religious belief as a special case deserving of special and separate consideration of some sort -- even if you aren't, in the end, as I may have gone too far in assuming, extending that special treatment to the issue of what clothes kids wear to school.

What makes religious belief better (or different in some special way, in case you intend to come back and give me shit about the word "better") doing something to make a point? What makes it better than a "silly schoolyard game"? Why would this kid have to prove anything about the nature and sincerity of anyone's beliefs but his own? Besides, why on earth would it matter if you could prove that someone "sat down and made it up" when it came to some other religion? Isn't the only thing that "matters", as far as religious freedom is concerned, is that someone living today believes this stuff is true, no matter where it originally came from?

I feel pretty damned sure guessing that you wouldn't advocate the slightest difference in treatment for the believers of religions the origin of which has been "proven" to be made up verses for those believers whose religions have kept their origins safely distant and obscure from the kind of scrutiny which could prove such a thing. So why even bring up the question of whether the FSM kid or anyone else could "prove that Moses, Muhammad, Jesus et all, all sat down and made it up"?

I think skepticism fails when taken into what we may call the metaphysical area.
Fails exactly how? What is your measure of this failure? If skepticism leads you to dismiss some sort of metaphysical claptrap, that's somehow a failure of skepticism?

It's different tools for different jobs and horses for courses I'm afraid.
What, pray tell, is this other "job", and why does it need a special tool?

Mmmm...i think I'd rather be a Pastafarian than a Scientologist...and find both equally...um...valid.

Aaaaarh! Where's me pirate outfit? What? They want $10,000 for a Pirate Oufit of the first order? $3,000 for a holy eyepatch blessed by the FSM?

Hurm.

Vinea

I have a business proprosition for you......

:lol:

True, my mistake. I've also heard that his Ultimate Enemy is is the evil and nefarious, Chicken Parmesan Man. However, as you can see below, the FSM usually wins. The CPM has one weakness..."broil."

It's a vengeful, delicious deity.