The Instigator
Pro (for)
2 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
1 Points

Pastafarianism is just as good, if not better then the Abrahamic Relgions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 74085
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




First round is for acceptance, and defining terms.


Pastafarianism: the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Good: comparative goodness or badness, which can be measured in morality, plausibility, rationality, et cetera
Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

I figured I would try this debate again, as last time my opponent caught me completely off guard.
Con must be a firm believer in one of the Abrahamic religions

Please support your arguments with evidence and reasoning.
BoP is shared.


I am a firm believer in Christianity.

I will argue that the Abrahamic Religions are better in three categories:

1. Logic
2. Plausibility
3. Morality

(No, I will not try to say that suffering is good)

With that, I accept. I will afford you the right to make your arguments before my own.
Debate Round No. 1


Thanks for accepting. I hope that this will be a fun and interesting debate.
I will now lay out my arguments and attempt to prove that Pastafarianism is just as good, or better then the Abrahamic Religions.

Arg. 1: Pastafarianism is just as plausible and realistic as the Abrahamic religions

To this day, there remains NO empirical evidence for a deity. There is no evidence for the God of the Abrahamic Religions, and there is also no evidence for the Flying Spaghetti monster. This puts both religions on equal footing.

Basically, because of the lack of evidence for both the Abrahamic Religions and Pastafarianism, neither is more plausible or more likely to be true.

Arg 2: The Pastafarian deity has better morals then the Abrahamic deity, according to religious texts

The Bible, the Torah, and the Qu'ran portray a god who commands violent and awful things.

In the Torah, stoning is frequently endorsed.

According to the Torah, someone should be stoned for

Lying about their virginity (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21)
Worshiping other gods (Deuteronomy 17: 2-5)
Having sex with someone else while engaged (Deuteronomy 22: 23-24)
Being a rebellious child (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21)

Capital punishment is also recommended for
Being Homosexual (Leviticus 20:13)
Cursing God (Leviticus 24: 10-16)

This shows that the God of the Torah is a God who commands violent things.

In Christianity, the laws of the Torah still apply (this claim is supported by 2 Timothy 3:16, Matthew 5:17, John 7:19, and Matthew 15: 1-7) , so the brutality in the Torah also casts doubt on the Christian God.

The Qu'ran also portrays a violent god.

"Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom." 5:33
"As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah." 5:38
"They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper." 4:89

The Pastafarian scriptures don't endorse and barbaric punishments, showing that the Pastafarian religion is much less violent.

Arg. 3: Unlike Pastafarianism, the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions portray a violent god.

In the Torah, some children mock a prophet for being bald, and god promptly kills all the children with bears.
"...young lads came out from the city and mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!"
When he looked behind him and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number." (2 Kings 2:23-24)

Additionally, God
-Destroys an entire city just because of the sexuality of its inhabitants (Genesis 19)
-Kills almost every living thing in the world, for unknown reasons (Genesis 6-8)
-Kills every firstborn son in Egypt, (Exodus 11-12)

Christianity tends to accept the teachings of the Old Testament, so the violence in the Old Testament also shows how violent Christianity is.

Taking the Old and New Testament together, the God of the Bible has killed 25 MILLION people

Additionally, God will (apparently) personally kill at least 87 million people (and presumable the rest of the world) in the rapture

The Qu'ran also portrays a violent God.
44% of the chapters in the Qu'ran refer to people being doomed or being sent to hell, where presumably people will be tortured for eternity.

Pastafarianism contains no stories of a violent God. Instead, most fables concern the jolly adventures of the pirate Mosey.


Thank you for the detailed response.

I will respond to each numerically.

I would first like to define God, which applies to each Abrahamic religion:

God: A being than which no greater can be conceived.

I shall now respond to my opponent's arguments.

1. Is Pastafarianism as plausible as the Abrahamic religions?

There are logical arguments which prove the existence of the God of Abrahamic religions, which cannot be applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The argument goes as such:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, The Universe has a cause.

Now, since The Universe encompasses all that which is material, the cause of The Universe must necessarily be immaterial.
However, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is made of meatballs and pasta.
So, it cannot cause The Universe.

The argument which shows that the FSM cannot create The Universe is as follows:

1. The Universe has an immaterial cause
2. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is material
3. Therefore, The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not the cause of The Universe.

Now, The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster states clearly that The FSM created The Universe:
I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. -Bobby Henderson

Therefore, their beliefs are illogical, and therefore Pastafarianism is not only implausible but impossible.

2. Is the Abrahamic God immoral?

My opponent has not shown how any of these acts are immoral.

Additionally, my opponent gives no good reasons for why the laws of The Torah still apply.

I shall answer each verse.

2 Timothy 3:16

This verse says that all scripture is God breathed and can be used for instruction. Well, this also includes the instruction to not be under the law. (Romans 6:14)

Matthew 5:17

This verse says that Jesus did not come to abolish The Law, but to fulfill it. However, the fulfillment of The Law is The New Covenant, which releases us from The Law. Therefore, The Law is not abolished, but fulfilled under a New Covenant.

John 7:19

This verse is actually Jesus using The Law to his advantage, as people were trying to kill him for breaking The Law.

Matthew 15

Verse 14 shows that he was again taking advantage of The Law.

3. Is The Abrahamic God Violent?

My opponent has yet to show how these actions of this God were unjustified. Until he does, I see no reason why the lack of violence lowers the overall standard of good.

I shall give him the chance to show us how it does.

Keep in mind, I am not saying that any sort of suffering is good. Rather, I am asking my opponents why these events are not good.

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank Con for his interesting remarks. This will be my final statement, as I (stupidly) only made three rounds in this debate.

1. Plausibility

Cons entire refutatio revolves around the claim that the Flying Spagetti Monster is made of matter, and therefor couldn't have created the universe. This stems from a missunderstanding of Pastafarianism. The Monster takes the form of a savory starch and meat dish, but is not physically made out of pasta or tomatos or meatballs. Just as God took the form of a burning bush in the bible, but was not physically a bush on fire, the Monster simply chooses to appear as pasta. Furthermore, even if the Monster was physically made of Pasta, the Christian God circumvates plenty of laws of physics (such as the conservation of mass), so I see no reason the the Monster can't do the same.

2. Morality

Con asks why these (clearly) immoral acts are immoral. People don't deserve to be brutally executed for simply lying about their virginity or worshiping other Gods. The general public is disgusted with stonings and beheadings in third world countries, but continue to celebrate the Bible, the Torah and the Qu'ran, which explicitly condones these things. It comes down to the fact that all three religions portay God as vehemently authoritarian. Do what he says or be killed and tortured for eternity. This theme of submission or eternal torture is found in in many many passages, but some of the most telling and explicite references are found in Quran 3:56, Quran 5:33, Surah 22:19-22, Revelation 21:8. Surah 22 states that non-believers will be hit with iron rods, and drenched in boiling water, while Revelation 21 specifically states that unbelievers will be cast into a fiery lake of sulfur. The reasons that this is immoral is clear to all. People who disagree or are simply ignorant don't deserve to be tortured for eternity. In Pastafarianism, hell is only reserved for the exceedingly wicked, and the only punishment is that while heaven has a beer volcano, in hell, the beer is warm and stale.

My opponent then tries to prove that scripture in the Torah does not apply to Christianity. He doesn't even attempt to defend Judaism or Islam, basically conceding that 2 out of the 3 abrahamic religions are less moral than pastafarian (which doesn't have a diety that advocates violent and brutal practises). Furthermore, even if Con had succsessfully proven that Christianity isn't immoral, he would still not have fufillled his burden, which was to prove that Christianity (and the other abrahamic religions) are better than Pastafarianism.

Now to the verses (and I thank Con for his clear organisation):

2 Timothy 3:16

All Con does is point out that there is a contradiction between 2 Timothy 2:16 and Romans 6:14. The fact that the bible is riddled with contradictions if more proof of my case. Furthermore, the verse which says "for thy are not under law but under grace" is saying "don't follow these laws because you have to, but because it is the right thing to do.

Matthew 5:17

The verse goes on to say "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished" which further enforces the notion that everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally.

John 7:19

Why would Jesus use the Law if he didn't believe it to be correct?

3. Violence

This violence was obviously unjustified. Destroying an entire city just because of sexuality? Sexuality is something that you are born with (as shown by modern sceince), and even if it is a choice, an entire cities worth of people don't deserve to die for making that choice! In the flood when he kills every living thing, he does it for no given reason. This is clearly not good. Even if some people were bad, does every child and bunny and petunia deserve to die horribly because of that? There must be a more peacful way to solve that problem! And finally, the killing of every first born in Egypt is just ridicolous. Killing every single child in an entire country is not justified just because their ruler did something bad. Should every first-born North Korean be slaughtered every time Kim-Jong-Un does something bad? Should every single first-born Iranian child be killed when their leader doesn't comply with western demands? And furthermore, the only reason that the Pharaoh refused to let the Jews go was that God hardened his heart (Exodus 9:12)! Basically, God makes the Pharoah do a bad deed, and then kills a ton of innocents to punish the Pharaoh? How is that justified?

In conclusion, Pastafarianism is better or equal to the abrahamic religions. It doesn't have any of the violence and torture explained above, and is just as unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, Con doesn't attempt to defend Judaism and Islam, and also doesn't attempt to prove that Pastafarianism is worse (as is his obligation).

Vote Con!


I thank Pro for his response.

I shall now address my opponent's points, and conclude this debate.

1. Plausibility

My opponent's counterargument is simply false, as Bobby Henderson, creator of Pastafarianism, states that The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a monster which was constructed of pasta and had the ability of flight before the creation of The Universe.

I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. -Bobby Henderson

If this Flying Spaghetti Monster did in fact create all material, then it could not have had the ability to fly (due to no spatial dimensions in existence to achieve lift) and could not have been composed of Spaghetti (since apparently it created Spaghetti, since we can see and feel Spaghetti).

As my opponent's claim contradicts The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (and thus, by Pro's definition, Pastafarianism), this is not a good argument to show that Pastafarianism is better than the Abrahamic religions' concept of God on the issue of plausibility.

Also, my opponent makes a fatal error in scientific understanding.

Pro claims that God violated the law of conversation of mass. This is simply false, as this law relies on the given quantity of mass at a certain point in time.

God. however, created time...and therefore the creation of matter without previous material existence is allowed under this physical law.

2. Morality

Pro claims that these acts are immoral, but his only arguments as to why these acts are immoral are as follows:

A. People do not deserve to be brutally executed for simple acts.

B. The majority of people disagree with the punishments for these acts.

For argument A, my opponent does not justify why these acts are simple. He does not show us that such things as false worship of another god is truly undeserving of the punishments given.

As such, it is an unfounded argument, and therefore is not a good reason to accept Pro's conclusion.

For argument B, my opponent raises the moral system of democratic relativism.

However, the implications of such a moral system seemingly contradict my opponent's conclusion, as if the majority of people supported the acts which he deems immoral, then these acts would actually be moral.

Pro's second argument defeats itself, and therefore is not a good reason to accept Pro's conclusion.

Also, I would like to address The Flying Spaghetti Monster as a just deity.

If the punishment for the exceedingly wicked is the absence of finer alcohol, then I wager that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is in fact an unjust being, a wicked being, for not giving fair justice to those who deserve it.

Using my opponent's stance on morality, he indirectly submits to the position that the concept of one deserving of punishment does in fact exist, since he claims that people do not deserve to be killed on the basis of a choice

So, with my opponent's morality, it would make The Flying Spaghetti Monster a being that which is unjust, as to not properly punish those who do extreme evils.

Pro then goes on to say that, even if I show that Christianity is moral, that I have not fulfilled my burden of proof.

However, since the God of Abraham applies to all three religions, I have already shown how these religions are better than Pastafarianism because of the fact that they are more plausible than Pastafarianism.

Concerning the rebuttals about the bible verses:

2 Timothy 2:16

First off, the verse is 3:16, not 2:16.

2 Timothy 2:16 talks about godless chatter.

However, I did not show a contradiction in the verse, rather that the verse given qualifies "all Scripture".

Unless my opponent argued that the verse in Romans is in fact not scripture, then he has not given us any good reasons to think that these verses are contradictory.

Matthew 5:17

My opponent abandons his actual evidence and instead deals with Matthew 5:18.

The usage here is figurative, which is why Luke recounts the words as follows:

It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.

John 7:19

Because the Pharisees, who were challenging Him, did. Exposing this exposes their own hypocrisy.

3. Violence.

My opponent gives no reasons to think that this violence was unjustified, but as I already addressed this on the topic of morality, I shall focus on a key fault which my opponent has made.

Pro says that science tells us that sexuality is something which we are born with, but there is no current consensus on the issue of sexuality and birth -

The rest of my opponent's presentation is simply stating that these acts are unjustified and not good. Just as with the issue of morals, my opponent has not given any good reasons for us to think that this is true.

The rest of Pro's argument fails because, once again, Pro fails to provide sufficient reasoning towards his own claims.


Concluding this debate, I have successfully refuted all of my opponent's claims on the issue of The Flying Spaghetti Monster being plausible.

Therefore, Pastafarianism is not equal nor better than the Abrahamic religions in terms of plausibility.

I have also shown my opponent's views on morality to be unfounded, and thus not sufficient for us to conclude that the Abrahamic religions are evil.

Furthermore, I also showed that under my opponent's view of morality, Pastafarianism is in fact unjust.

Therefore, Pastafarianism is not equal nor better than the Abrahamic religions in terms of morality.

I have also shown my opponent to be just as unfounded on the issue of violence.

Therefore, Pastafarianism is not equal nor better than the Abrahamic religions in terms of violence.

My opponent has not given any good reasons why we should think that Pastafarianism is better or equal to Abrahamic religions.

I have also shown that Pastafarianism is implausible, thus rendering the Abrahamic religions better than Pastafarianism in terms of plausibility, thus rendering my opponent's case false.

I wish to thank my opponent for the debate, and also thank him for his support in asking voters to side with me.

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Asburnu 1 year ago
Pastafari! Pizza pie in eye! Flying high, aye, never neigh! Pastfari!
Posted by Elord 1 year ago
I would accept if this was bigger than Abrahamic religions.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:21 
Reasons for voting decision: There were numerous minor spelling mistakes (i.e. "sceince", "Pharoah ", "succsessfully "), ,throughout Pro's 2nd and 3rd round arguments, enough so where I give S/G to Con. Pro's arguments (2 & 3) attempted to highlight the negative aspects of the Abrahamic religions to better the image of Pastafarianism. Although Con argued against these points, no attempt was made to show that Pastafarianism was not "just as good as" (i.e. worse). except to show that the FSM is "unjust" by Pro's own reasoning, which still leaves them all on equal standing. The issue boils down to the plausibility argument. Both participants supplied assertive explanations and there was no support to either argument. Con cited a quote, but that quote doesn't necessarily infer what is being argued; that he is necessarily composed of physical matter. The lack of a solid resolution here forces the argument to a tie. Pro had a stronger use of sources, supplied almost all of the links, though not all were very strong.