"Russell's teapot" is a famous analogy used by the English mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell to refute the idea that the burden of proving the falsity of religious claims lies with the doubter. This concept later formed the basis of overtly parodic religious forms such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarianism) or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Maybe a seagull?
In 1952, an article entitled "Is there a God?" (“Is There a God?”) Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) wrote: “Many believers behave as if it were not the dogmatists who were supposed to prove the generally accepted postulates, but, on the contrary, the skeptics were obliged to refute them. This is definitely not the case.
If I were to claim that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars, no one would be able to refute my assertion, adding as a precaution that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense.
However, if the existence of such a teapot was confirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this thought was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and a doubter would be worthy of the attention of psychiatrists in an enlightened era ... "
This article was sent to the editors of Illustrated magazine in 1952, but was not published at that time due to its scandalous nature. The main idea of Russell's Teapot is that of two theories explaining the same thing, the theory with "higher beings" (creationism) should be rejected, and instead a theory without superfluous entities (evolution) should be accepted. and natural selection).
Pastafarianism
The parody religion, also known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, was founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Department of Education's decision to introduce the concept of "Intelligent Design" into the school curriculum as an alternative. evolutionary teaching. Henderson proclaims a preposterous belief in a supernatural meatball-like Creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for the teaching of Pastafarianism in schools along with other religions. The name of the religion is a kind of "vinaigrette" from the words "Rastafarianism" and the Italian "pasta", meaning pasta. "Ramen" - the official end of Pastafarian prayers - is also a combination of the word "Amen" (used in Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and "ramen" - Japanese noodle soup.
According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are the apostles of the Pastafarians. Their depiction as sea robbers is vile misinformation spread by the opponents of religion. In reality, the pirates were "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of goodwill" who handed out candy to children. In a mocking letter to the Kansas Department of Education, Henderson develops the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in pirate numbers since 1800." The relationship of pirates to warming is confirmed by the fact that as soon as the number of Somali pirates increased, the warming conference failed. Thus, the author proves that statistically related things, however, are not necessarily connected by causal dependencies (as the creationists insist).
The canonical dogmas of pastafaritanism include eight pieces of advice “You'd better not do this” (as comments on the fulfillment of the Old Testament Ten Commandments). For example: “You better not act like a self-absorbed ass and saint when you preach My spaghetti grace. If other people do not believe in Me, there is nothing to worry about. I'm not that narcissistic, honestly." Or: “It would be better if you did not justify in My name the oppression, enslavement or economic exploitation of others.” Or: “It would be better if you didn’t spend a lot of money on building churches, temples, mosques in the name of glorifying My pasta grace, because this money is better spent on ending poverty, curing diseases and reducing the cost of the Internet.”
In 2011, the Austrian authorities, on the basis of constitutional human rights, had to allow Pastafarian Nico Alm to be photographed on a driver's license with a colander on his head as a religious headdress. Otherwise, why can Muslims be photographed for documents in hijabs that hide most of the face? “My main goal is to make people think about the adequacy of the system,” said a practicing atheist.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
The parodic deity has the appearance of a pink unicorn but is invisible, a contradiction similar to that of most theistic religions. They are based on the “paradox of omnipotence”: if an omnipotent deity creates a stone that it cannot lift, it will cease to be omnipotent. If not, then it never was.
The first known written mention of him was in the Usenet alt.atheism newsgroup in the summer of 1990. The image of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is eagerly used by religious skeptics, and in 2007 it became an informal symbol of atheism. To this day, it is used to prove the conditionality of belief in the supernatural: they replace the word "God" in any expression that is related to religion, from which their meaning becomes completely delusional, fanatical, "sectarian." This is what the speaker usually achieves, trying to show the “humble parishioner” how he looks from the outside with his ideas.
One of the most popular arguments in the arsenal of atheists is the "Russell's teapot" analogy, which, according to its author, the English philosopher Bertrand Russell, rejects the idea that the burden of proving unfalsifiable religious claims is on the doubter. Atheists firmly believe in the infallibility of the "teapot" and use it in their revelations as a control shot in the head of an ideological opponent. Often they only mention the name of this analogy, without bothering to quote it: this “teapot” looks so weighty in their eyes.
But is the “teapot” really as flawless and justified as atheists think? In order to better understand this issue, I allow myself to fully quote the content of Russell's reasoning: “If I assume that between the Earth and Mars around the Sun, in an elliptical orbit, a porcelain teapot flies, no one will be able to refute my assertion, especially if I prudently add that the teapot is so small that it is not visible even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I then said that since my statement cannot be refuted, then it is inadmissible human mind doubt it, my words should, with good reason, be considered nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot were asserted in the ancient books, memorized every Sunday as a holy truth, and precipitated in the minds of schoolchildren, then doubting its existence would be a sign of eccentricity and would attract the attention of a psychiatrist in the age of enlightenment to the doubter, or inquisitor in earlier times."
The logic of reasoning is clear, and at first glance it seems flawless. It is claimed that something exists, but there is no evidence for it. To take on faith the existence of such an object is absurd. And if we replace the Kettle in this analogy with God, then the final conclusion should not change.
However, do not rush to take the side of Russell. Let's take a closer look at this story. In order to make his example "obviously absurd", the author uses a china teapot as an object. And teapots are not in the habit of plying space, unless, of course, one of them is purposely put into orbit around the sun. Would the example remain just as absurd if we put in its place a natural object, one of the many bodies that make up the solar system?
Suppose I say the following: "Between the Earth and Mars around the Sun, an asteroid flies in an elliptical orbit, it is so small that it is not visible even with the most powerful telescopes." It would seem that such a statement is not too different from Russell's; however, do not rush to declare it false.
All readers who have studied astronomy know that solar system includes, in addition to large planets, small bodies - asteroids. Since the discovery of the first asteroid - Cerrera - their number has grown like a snowball and began to be measured in thousands. Naturally, only a few asteroids are relatively large. It was the large asteroids that were discovered in the first place: Cerrera, Pallas, Juno, Vesta. Today it is clear that asteroids do not have any lower limit to their size; and the smaller the asteroids, the greater their number. Meteorites - "heavenly stones" - sometimes reaching the surface of the Earth or burning up in the atmosphere, these are unlucky asteroids that collided with our planet.
If the replacement of a deliberately artificial object with a natural one radically changes the meaning of the statement from absurd to quite probable, then we have not justified evidence, but a psychological trick. Russell from the very beginning makes the reader understand that the object he describes does not exist, endowing it with properties atypical for a cosmic body. Everything else, in essence, is no longer proof: the fact that the teapot does not exist is already veiledly affirmed in the first sentence. That is why Russell's example cannot serve as an analogy for faith in God: after all, believers did not invent God for the amusement of philosophizing freethinkers; they believe in it, that is, they recognize it as existing, and at the same time they consider such a position to be justified. Russell in the "teapot" makes it clear that, apart from an unfounded assertion, there are no grounds for believing in God.
However, the text itself refutes this thesis. Let's read the lines that end the teapot: "... The existence of such a teapot would be confirmed in ancient books, memorized every Sunday as a holy truth, and would be deposited in the minds of schoolchildren." If we reformulate Russell's theses, they will take the following form: “The proof of the existence of something is its demonstration, or logical reasoning. What teachers say and what is contained in books (especially ancient ones) should not be accepted as evidence.
It seems to me that defending such theses in the scientific community is a sure way to be ridiculed for truly childish naivety and complete absence knowledge about how scientific work is generally carried out. A visual demonstration is effective - who will argue with that! Therefore, both in schools and in institutes, teachers try to dilute the dryness of the material with visual aids, experiments, demonstrations, etc. However, visualization also has its limits. This was known to the ancient Greeks: Democritus, for example, speaking about the fact that there are two kinds of knowledge - with the help of feelings and with the help of reason - the second included the knowledge of atoms. Atoms were discovered speculatively by Democritus, but this does not prevent us from considering him one of the founders of modern natural science. In modern science, knowledge is not only obtained, but also accumulated and passed on from generation to generation; this process is impossible without memorizing "school truths", a critical examination of each of which would greatly complicate scientific and technological progress, because the researcher would devote all his time and energy not to searching for something new, but to verifying what has already been established. But, when it comes to testing, what kinds of arguments are taken into consideration and what is their relative value?
There are four types of arguments in rhetoric: a) an argument for the obvious - testimonies, documents, expert data and scientific analysis, b) arguments for reflection (to logos) - induction, deduction, analogy, c) arguments for feelings, passions (to pathos), d) ethical arguments (to ethos). At the same time, the first two types of arguments are called arguments “on the merits” and are opposed to two other, “human” arguments. The dependence of the second group of arguments on random, subjective factors often served as the reason for a critical attitude towards them. One of the founders of the new European scientific tradition, Francis Bacon, called for exposing "ghosts" - that is, established, habitual, but, nevertheless, not entirely justified beliefs. Russell's analogy develops precisely this tradition: the author, as it were, tells us that there are good and bad arguments; the second, as he makes us understand, do not deserve the attention of the researcher.
Thus, without any justification, we are gradually suggested the idea that sacred tradition"too human" and that nothing "human" is acceptable to use in a scientific dispute. Of course, any believer would rather refer Scripture to documents, that is, "arguments to the obvious"; unlike the atheist, who tends to see in the Bible only a reflection objective consciousness and fixing various ethical and ritual norms.
A flaw in atheistic argument is that all four groups of arguments have a right to exist in certain circumstances. Of course, with the development of the exact sciences, arguments for the obvious and for logos gained more weight. From an atheist's point of view religious beliefs, as well as ethical ones, are relative, developed historically and represent precisely “ghosts”, that is, uncritically perceived beliefs. However, the relativity of arguments to ethos does not devalue them. Russell questions faith in God, considering it irrelevant that many generations of people keep this faith and pass it on to future generations? But what does he say, for example, about morality? Even an atheist cannot deny the rational principle contained in morality, although he will explain its presence by “adaptation”, “collective experience”, etc.
The example of morality shows that not everything we are taught is ghosts that do not deserve to be mentioned in a serious discussion. Once again I want to draw the reader's attention to the last lines of the "teapot": "... the existence of such a teapot would be affirmed in ancient books, memorized every Sunday as a holy truth, and would be deposited in the minds of schoolchildren." Where does this a priori distrust of "ancient books" come from? Perhaps Russell does not like that these books are written by people who are not familiar with the principles modern science? In this case, historians should be the object of criticism of the English skeptic first of all: after all, in addition to archaeological data, they use ancient chronicles, chronicles, letters - in a word, “ancient books”, the authors of which were clearly not familiar with the principles scientific work. Russell's teapot attracts rationally thinking people its apparent logic and simplicity. However, being consistent, gentlemen atheists will be forced to delete from the list of historical figures not only Jesus Christ, but also Julius Caesar, and Charlemagne, and many more people who did not live to see the birth of historical science (the 19th century).
- Russell's Teapot is an analogy first introduced by the English mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) to refute the idea that the burden of proof (for example, the falsity of religious statements) lies with the doubter.
In 1952, in an article titled "Does God Exist?" (Is There a God?), sent to the editor but never published in Illustrated, Russell wrote:
Many believers behave as if it is not for dogmatists to prove generally accepted postulates, but, on the contrary, for skeptics to refute them. This is definitely not the case. If I were to assert that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars, no one could refute my assertion, adding as a precaution that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot was confirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this thought was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and a doubter would be worthy of the attention of a psychiatrist in an enlightened era, and earlier - attention inquisitor.
Peter Atkins explains the idea of Russell's teapot by the fact that a scientist is not obliged to prove negative statements, since, in accordance with the principle of Occam's razor, of the two theories explaining the same thing, the more complex theory (which, among other things, contains higher beings) should be rejected and a simpler theory should be accepted.
Related concepts
Arguments for and against the existence of gods, and in particular the God of the Abrahamic religions, have been proposed by philosophers, theologians, and scientists for several millennia. Currently, in philosophical terminology, these issues are considered within the framework of epistemology and ontology.
Strong (also called positive or hard) and weak (also called negative or soft) atheism are forms of atheism that state that there are no deities in the case of strong atheism, or is a disbelief in the existence of any deities, while clearly not claiming that they do not exist, in the case of weak atheism.
Hanlon's razor is the presumption that when looking for the causes of unpleasant events, human errors should be assumed first of all, and only in the second place - someone's conscious malicious actions. Usually expressed by the phrase: “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity” (English Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity).
" Golden rule of morality" - a general ethical rule that can be formulated as "Treat people the way you want to be treated." The negative formulation of this rule is also known: “do not do to others what you do not want to yourself.”
"God of the gaps" (Eng. God of the gaps) - proof of the existence of God, based on "gaps" in scientific and natural data.
A psychic is a person who supposedly has the ability to extrasensory perception. Since there are no scientifically confirmed cases of the existence of such people, the word "psychic" is usually used to refer to people who claim to have psychic abilities.
Pyrrhonism is a philosophical school of skeptics founded in the 1st century AD. e. Aenesidemus, whose teaching was expounded by Sextus Empiricus at the end of the 2nd or the beginning of the 3rd century AD. e. Named after Pyrrho of Elis ancient Greek philosopher(IV-III centuries BC), the founder of ancient skepticism, although the connections between his teaching and philosophical school unclear. It received a revival in the 17th century.
The Thomas theorem is a statement in sociology that in human behavior the consequences are determined not by reality, but by a person's opinion about it ("self-fulfilling prophecy"). The Thomases (W. A. Thomas and D. Thomas) formulated their thesis in 1928 as...
Absurdism (also known as "philosophy of the absurd") - a system philosophical views, which developed from existentialism, which affirms the absence of the meaning of human existence (the absurdity of human existence).
The Problem of Personal Identity - philosophical problem, consisting in the fact that a person at different points in time considers himself the same person, while his body and consciousness are constantly changing. The main competing theories in this area are...
Exotheology is a term that appeared in the late 1960s and early 1970s to discuss the problem of extraterrestrial intelligence in the context of theological issues. This dealt with issues such as the possible theological beliefs of ETs or the impact that ET interactions might have on our own theologians. One of the main themes of exotheology is the use of extraterrestrial beings, who are alive and endowed with a soul, as a tool for a thought experiment...
The Gettier problem is one that challenges the traditional approach of philosophy to understanding knowledge. In the traditional approach of philosophy, knowledge is a true and justified opinion.
Contactees are people who claim to have made contact with aliens. As a rule, contactees claim that extraterrestrial beings gave them their wisdom or important messages for humanity. Contactees describe their meetings with them as regular or sporadic. The main difference between such contacts and abductions is that contactees do everything voluntarily, and violence is not used against them, unlike abductions, when people are subjected to experiments, sexual and moral abuse...
Evidence - reasoning according to certain rules, substantiating any statement. In different fields of science and human activity, this term has different meanings.
Intelligent Falling (RP; eng. Intelligent Falling) is a parody pseudoscientific theory that ridicules the idea of "intelligent design" by bringing it to absurdity. The "reasonable fall theory" states that gravity does not exist, and the fall of objects is controlled in each individual case directly by the higher mind, that is, God.
Newtonianism is a system of views based on the theories, principles and methods of the English scientist Isaac Newton (1642 - 1727). The characteristics of Newtonian philosophy are the rejection of unfounded hypotheses, the use of the method of analysis and synthesis, the application of mathematical methods.
Omnipotence is an inexhaustible force that has no conceivable limits, in other words, a force that has limitless possibilities. Monotheistic religions usually attribute omnipotence to God alone.
Reincarnation research - research in the field of parapsychology, the purpose of which is to identify verifiable facts that testify in favor of the existence of the phenomenon of reincarnation, that is, reincarnation after death into a new body of some immortal human essence.
Cosmology in Judaism - in the philosophy and theology of Judaism, various worldview problems related to cosmology (the science of the properties and evolution of the universe) at various stages of the development of this science are reflected. The evolution of Jewish views on the structure of the universe can be traced from the Biblical period through the Talmud and medieval philosophers such as Maimonides, especially in developing attitudes towards the teachings of Aristotle. In the transitional period to the new time, the generally positive is of interest ...
(suspension of disbelief), the deliberate suspension of disbelief, is a concept introduced in 1817 by the poet and philosopher of aesthetics Samuel Coleridge, who suggested that if a writer brings "human interest and a semblance of truth" to a fictional story, then the reader will refrain from critical judgments about implausibility events and accept the conventions of the narrative. The suspension of distrust, the psychological acceptance of the depicted world as real under given conditions is a condition...
Fatalism or fatality (from Latin fatalis "determined by fate") - belief in the predestination of being; a worldview based on the belief in the inevitability of events that are already imprinted in advance and only “manifest” as the initially incorporated properties of this space.
Teleological argument (Greek teleo - finish, bring to perfection, to the end; logos - word, judgment, reason, meaning) - an argument in favor of the existence of God or any other rational creative being, based on the phenomenon of the existence of complexity or meaningfulness in nature , for example, on the existence of such complex beings as man.
The cosmology of Giordano Bruno is one of the key components of the teachings of the Italian Renaissance philosopher Giordano Bruno (real name: Filippo, nickname - Nolan; 1548, Nola near Naples - February 17, 1600, Rome). Cosmological issues were touched upon in many works by Giordano Bruno, most fully in the dialogues Feast on Ashes (1584) and On the Infinite, the Universe and Worlds (1584) and the poem On the Immeasurable and Incalculable (1591).
Catch-22 is a situation that results from a logical paradox between mutually exclusive rules and procedures. In this situation, an individual who falls under the influence of such norms cannot control them in any way, since an attempt to violate these installations automatically implies their observance.
Russell's teapot roams the space theater
Russell's teapot is a well-known analogy that it is necessary to prove the existence of a phenomenon or object, and not non-existence. "Kettle" was first used in religious theme, however, it is necessary to apply this logical dish in astronomy.
Disputes about religion often come down to one thesis: “And you prove that there is no God\Buddha\Flying Spaghetti Monster!” In 1952, a mathematician, thinker and just good man Bertrand Russell wrote the article "Is There a God?" which stated the following:
If I were to claim that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit, no one could refute my assertion, if I add prudently that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense. However, if the existence of such a teapot was confirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this thought was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and the doubter would be worthy of the attention of psychiatrists in an enlightened era, and earlier - attention inquisition.
Bertrand Russell is pleased with what has been said.
In short, Russell's Kettle Paradox is that a scientist doesn't have to prove that something doesn't exist. Conversely, any statement about the existence of an object or phenomenon must be supported by something.
Cooling Kettle
The analogy cited by the mathematician pleased people, and therefore became a byword and one of the criteria for the scientific nature of a statement. For example, the existence of dinosaurs is supported by evidence in the form of bones, but talking tomatoes are not. Therefore, they now teach in school that dinosaurs walked a long time ago, and not talking tomatoes, although there is no evidence to refute the latter. Here, we hope, everything is clear - if not, write in the comments, we will come up with an example clearer.
How Pirates Affect Global Warming
There is another funny phenomenon indirectly connected with the Teapot. We cannot prove the influence of pirates on global warming, although there is a statistical relationship between them. When there were a lot of pirates in the world, it was much cooler on Earth. The decrease in the number of pirates by the 20th century coincided with an increase in global temperatures. Having reached a peak in the late 2000s, the warming began to recede simultaneously with the rise of piracy in Somalia.Of course, pirates have the same attitude to temperature as bearded, one-eyed and one-legged guys in cocked hats have to real pirates, but the coincidence is funny.
There is another side. The existence of Atlantis is spoken of only in myths, and there is no clear evidence anywhere. Therefore, no one from archaeologists bothers to prove that there were no mythical Atlanteans. This is interpreted by lovers of the supernatural in the spirit of "silence is a sign of consent." “If scientists cannot refute Atlantis, then it existed!” they say. This is where Russell's Teapot comes to the rescue and cools overly ardent minds.
Super kettle at home
The Kettle Principle was used by people long before the birth of Bertrand Russell. Let's see how the superhero teapot helps us in everyday life.
One of the most striking examples is the presumption of innocence in justice. If a store across the street is robbed at night, no one will arrest you just because you live next door. More compelling reasons are needed to accuse; for example, the fact that you were seen at the door when the alarm went off. Everyone is innocent until proven otherwise - this principle, Kettle Russell's cousin, has protected people for many years from arbitrariness in the judicial system.
Reptilians will not pass!
Another Kettle mercilessly castigates the tabloids. In 2012, journalists often questioned astronomers about the planet Nibiru. Hearing in response that scientists cannot prove that it does not exist, the journalists trumpeted the end of the world. But astronomers just wanted to say that Nibiru is no more real than a porcelain teapot between Mars and Jupiter! By the way, we have already written about the solar system. There is an opinion that it was she who was mistaken for Nibiru by astronomers of the past.
The principle can also be useful at work. If the boss says that there is no reason not to pay the bonus, this does not mean that the money is in your pocket. After all, we still need reasons to encourage!
Finally
We Guides to the world of space have our own Russell Teapot in the kitchen, and we regularly make sobering tea with it. And if you are interested in the real wonders of the Universe, and not the Atlanteans, plowing the expanses of the cosmic theater, then you are in the right place. Below we have a lot of interactive things, and there is also
"Russell's teapot" is a famous analogy used by the English mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell to refute the idea that the burden of proving the falsity of religious claims lies with the doubter. This concept later formed the basis of overtly parodic religious forms such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarianism) or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.Maybe a seagull?
In 1952, an article entitled "Is there a God?" (“Is There a God?”) Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) wrote: “Many believers behave as if it is not the dogmatists who are supposed to prove the generally accepted postulates, but rather the skeptics are obliged to refute them. This is definitely not the case.
If I were to claim that a porcelain teapot revolves around the Sun in an elliptical orbit between the Earth and Mars, no one would be able to refute my assertion, adding as a precaution that the teapot is too small to detect even with the most powerful telescopes. But if I further stated that, since my assertion cannot be refuted, a reasonable person has no right to doubt its truth, then I would rightly be told that I am talking nonsense.
However, if the existence of such a teapot was confirmed in ancient books, its authenticity was repeated every Sunday, and this thought was hammered into the heads of schoolchildren from childhood, then disbelief in its existence would seem strange, and a doubter would be worthy of the attention of psychiatrists in an enlightened era ... "
This article was sent to the editors of Illustrated magazine in 1952, but was not published at that time due to its scandalous nature. The main idea of Russell's Teapot is that of two theories explaining the same thing, the theory with "higher beings" (creationism) should be rejected, and instead a theory without superfluous entities (evolution) should be accepted. and natural selection).
Pastafarianism
The parody religion, also known as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, was founded by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Department of Education's decision to introduce the concept of "Intelligent Design" into the school curriculum as an alternative to evolutionary teaching. Henderson proclaims a preposterous belief in a supernatural meatball-like Creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and calls for the teaching of Pastafarianism in schools along with other religions. The name of the religion is a kind of “vinaigrette” from the words “Rastafarianism” and the Italian “pasta”, meaning pasta. "Ramen" - the official end of Pastafarian prayers - is also a combination of the word "Amen" (used in Christianity, Judaism and Islam) and "ramen" - Japanese noodle soup.
According to the Pastafarian belief system, pirates are the apostles of the Pastafarians. Their depiction as sea robbers is vile misinformation spread by the opponents of religion. In reality, the pirates were "peace-loving explorers and spreaders of goodwill" who handed out candy to children. In a mocking letter to the Kansas Department of Education, Henderson develops the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in pirate numbers since 1800." The relationship of pirates to warming is confirmed by the fact that as soon as the number of Somali pirates increased, the warming conference failed. Thus, the author proves that statistically related things, however, are not necessarily connected by causal dependencies (as the creationists insist).
The canonical dogmas of pastafaritanism include eight pieces of advice “You'd better not do this” (as comments on the fulfillment of the Old Testament Ten Commandments). For example: “You better not act like a self-absorbed ass and saint when you preach My spaghetti grace. If other people do not believe in Me, there is nothing to worry about. I'm not that narcissistic, honestly." Or: “It would be better if you did not justify in My name the oppression, enslavement or economic exploitation of others.” Or: “It would be better if you didn’t spend a lot of money on building churches, temples, mosques in the name of glorifying My pasta grace, because this money is better spent on ending poverty, curing diseases and reducing the cost of the Internet.”
In 2011, the Austrian authorities, on the basis of constitutional human rights, had to allow Pastafarian Nico Alm to be photographed on a driver's license with a colander on his head as a religious headdress. Otherwise, why can Muslims be photographed for documents in hijabs that hide most of the face? “My main goal is to make people think about the adequacy of the system,” declared a practicing atheist.
Invisible Pink Unicorn
The parodic deity has the appearance of a pink unicorn, but is invisible, a contradiction similar to that of most theistic religions. They are based on the “paradox of omnipotence”: if an omnipotent deity creates a stone that it cannot lift, it will cease to be omnipotent. If it can't, then it never was.
The first known written mention of him was in the Usenet alt.atheism newsgroup in the summer of 1990. The image of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is eagerly used by religious skeptics, and in 2007 it became an informal symbol of atheism. To this day, it is used to prove the conditionality of belief in the supernatural: they replace the word "God" in any expression that is related to religion, from which their meaning becomes completely delusional, fanatical, "sectarian." This is what the speaker usually achieves, trying to show the “humble parishioner” how he looks from the outside with his ideas.
