Stephen Cavanaugh is incarcerated by the state of Nebraska. He also identifies himself a “member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” in a legal complaint filed against the state’s Department of Corrections. According to that complaint, Cavanaugh requested “accommodated status” for this church, a status that would allow him to “order and wear religious clothing and pendants” and to “meet for weekly worship services and classes.”

Oh, and the “religious clothing” he wants to wear is a pirate costume.

Cavanaugh’s complaint quotes The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which he identifies as one of his religion’s “holy texts.” In the passage quoted by Cavanaugh, the “holy text” explains that “it is disfrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing [the Flying Spaghetti Monster's] chosen outfit” and that the Flying Spaghetti Monster “becomes angry if we don’t.” Thus, Cavanaugh writes, the prison system has forced him to “choose between angering his God by not attempting to spread His word and demonstrate his faith, or angering his God by doing so in a disrespectful manner.”....

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/1 ... -a-pirate/

Keep It Real wrote:I just thought of a way that being a devout pastsfarian might be the best chance of beating Pascal's wager. I just got out of bed though so can't quite get my act together enough to post it yet. I won't forget though and will soon. I'd like to see the courts get embroiled in that argument!

Keep It Real wrote:I just thought of a way that being a devout pastsfarian might be the best chance of beating Pascal's wager. I just got out of bed though so can't quite get my act together enough to post it yet. I won't forget though and will soon. I'd like to see the courts get embroiled in that argument!

BlackBart wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I just thought of a way that being a devout pastsfarian might be the best chance of beating Pascal's wager. I just got out of bed though so can't quite get my act together enough to post it yet. I won't forget though and will soon. I'd like to see the courts get embroiled in that argument!

Except wouldn't an all knowing God immediately see through any attempt to beat the system?

Keep It Real wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:I just thought of a way that being a devout pastsfarian might be the best chance of beating Pascal's wager. I just got out of bed though so can't quite get my act together enough to post it yet. I won't forget though and will soon. I'd like to see the courts get embroiled in that argument!

Except wouldn't an all knowing God immediately see through any attempt to beat the system?

Well, it goes like this. Any god which may exist seems to want only one thing which we can honestly infer - it doesn't want us to believe it exists. It has left no evidence at all and a plethora of "suffering of the innocents" type events which actively work against belief. If there is such a god, surely the one thing that would anger it is people saying/thinking/acting as if it does exist. If it were to punish anything it would be belief. Ridiculing and thereby discouraging belief, through outspoken pastafarianism, might well be the best way to do the bidding of this hypothetically possible vengeful god. If one were to a) state that there is likely to be such a being or b) passively allow others to believe, thereby possibly condemning themselves to afterlife torment, one would be behaving unethically. One would be obeying the apparent will of any hypothetically possible god - not trying to beat the system. And if there really isn't a god (which seems likely) then one has merely attempted to stand up for the truth and enlighten the masses.

Keep It Real wrote:I'm using the term Pascal's wager loosely - what I outlined is what seems to me to be the best way of avoiding god's wrath/eternal damnation.

As I said; the fact it gives no evidence for it's existence and the suffering of the innocents suggests it doesn't want us to believe in it. It's more likely because that's the reality we find ourselves in.

Keep It Real wrote:Not that loosely. Pascal's Wager centres on holding the correct belief to avoid eternal damnation. So does my idea.

If a god wanted us to believe in him it stands to reason it'd leave some evidence or show itself in some way. The fact it doesn't suggests it doesn't want us to believe in it.

BlackBart wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Not that loosely. Pascal's Wager centres on holding the correct belief to avoid eternal damnation. So does my idea.

But you have no way of knowing if it's correct or not, so where's the guarantee of avoiding damnation?

BlackBart wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:
If a god wanted us to believe in him it stands to reason it'd leave some evidence or show itself in some way. The fact it doesn't suggests it doesn't want us to believe in it.

You keep asserting that, but you don't support it. Why is that any more likely than a jealous God requiring absolute faith in the face of human suffering?

Keep It Real wrote:

BlackBart wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Not that loosely. Pascal's Wager centres on holding the correct belief to avoid eternal damnation. So does my idea.

But you have no way of knowing if it's correct or not, so where's the guarantee of avoiding damnation?

Not guarantee - best chance.

BlackBart wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:
If a god wanted us to believe in him it stands to reason it'd leave some evidence or show itself in some way. The fact it doesn't suggests it doesn't want us to believe in it.

You keep asserting that, but you don't support it. Why is that any more likely than a jealous God requiring absolute faith in the face of human suffering?

Because reality - no evidence and the suffering of the innocents.

You keep saying it's an assertion - are you saying there is no evidence for the suffering of the innocents or that there is evidence for the existence of a god?

I'm With Stupid wrote:If I ever end up in prison, I think I'll find religion. Probably one where it's a religious requirement to eat a fillet steak every day.

Keep It Real wrote:It seems likely that if there is a god it doesn't want us to believe in it - if it did it would provide some evidence of it's existence.

Nothing you've said changes that.