I think they simply cut out the unnecessary details. What's a religion, from a political and sociological point of view? It's an ethics from which you think law

I think they simply cut out the unnecessary details. What's a religion, from a political and sociological point of view? It's an ethics from which you think laws, reputation, behavior, social organization ought to proceed; this view is normally shared by a statistically significant, and generally structured, group of people. Whether people chose a given ethics because an invisible friend in the sky told them so matters for themselves, but not for anyone else. AFAIK, Buddhists don't have any proper imaginary friend in the sky, yet they're acknowledged as a religion. I think there's a bunch or people, who might want structure themselves, who share a sense of ethics, of Good and Evil, a view on what's an ideal society... every politically relevant feature of an organised religion. I'm OK with them calling themselves Kopimistsm they need some label anyway. In a country where you have to publicly state your religious affiliation, such as Sweden, it ought to be a valid choice. Pastafarianism is a satyre, because it says "So we need an imaginary friend, if we want our ethics to be recognized as legitimate? And we have do silly stuff to please Him? Here's an imaginary friend, and here are a couple of silly stuff He likes". Kopimism is respectful, by not mocking this implicit imaginary friend requirement. Up to their opponents to make an ass of themselves by explicitly demanding the imaginary friend, in which case I'd expect the response to be Pastafarian indeed.