You’re going to hell for degrading god to a pile of noodles. Have fun burning for an eternity. -Erik Vavro
Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Raf- My god, are you conceited. ““You have to earn your way in to paridize!— ….Um….that’s how it should be. Why should anyone get in based on what they call themselves? Why shouldn’t you have to prove that you’re worth heaven to get into heaven? And I’m sorry, but I don’t get your answer to my question at all. Say what you will, no religion should make you look forward to death. If yours does, perhaps you’d be interested in a suicide bombing or two…? Takes you to Jeezuz and rids the world of some pesky nonbelievers at the same time.
-
Oh wait…the end of your post…that explains everything. You hear voices. Yup. Explains a lot. But isn’t interesting how God, rather then solve world hunger or bring world peace, chooses to tell you what websites to visit?
@Iron gill Kidd
Alot of people hear these voices. It could be worse. Suppose 90% heard the voices and we didn’t. We’d definitely be on the outs.
@Raf
When you say earn my way in does this mean I need cash or can I just write a cheque…I’m glad to see the practice of “indulgence” is back in fashon (medieval cash-for-salvation practice…in case you didn’t know)…I did hear God up until my reconversion to the FSM…he sounds like Kevin Bacon…
@Thumper
You mention Kevin Bacon
And there was that concept of 6 degrees of separation. Now there are some definitonal problems like if I know you is that 0 degrees or 1 degree of separation. Never got clear on that but let’s suppose that’s zero. Now suppos,e you or someone you know, knows god, then to connect any 2 people you only need three degrees of separation, given that god knows eveyone.
So if this is the best the author of the book could do, this book is claiming God does not exist. Profound, but subtle, for a best seller.
@Bill
Sometimes I wonder! Maybe that was Jesus’s problem to begin with–I don’t think they knew how to diagnose scizophrenia in the Old Days!
@Bill
I’m afraid you’ve lost me Bill…but I’m surely interested…can you rephrase and repeat for the not-so-sharp wabbit…I’m with you as far as 0 degrees but struggle with the book claiming that “God does not exist”.
.
For the record I’ve not read the book although I am au fait with it. When I named “Kevin Bacon” as the voice of God sometime ago I chose him on the basis of:
.
1. Having a non God like voice, and;
2. Being relatively obscure.
.
My purpose in chosing such was to invoke mirth in the reader of my post and thus spread good cheer among Pastafarian and Pirate alike.
@Thumper
O.K. I see we are coming from different. Datas
There was a book called ’six degrees of separation’ that claimed that any two people on the earth could be connected by 5 or 6 people in between who knew each other. They use as their spoke ‘kevin bacon’ who seems to know a lot of people.
Anyway, i doubt the thesis if you exclude god because some newborn in alaska that only knows her mother has to connect to some newborn in dark africa that only knows it’s mother and then you only have 4 degrees of separation left. Sorry if reference is too obscure. But got makes the connective link much shorter.
@Bill
Yes I get the whole 6 degrees thing and I’m familar with the concept…and that Kevin Bacon was the “poster child” for the theory (we get Oprah here to)but I didn’t get the existance of god being disapproved…obviously God is connected to everyone (apparently we all know him personally)but why is he disproved?
.
6 degrees of separation sounds like a load of rot all right.
.
Did you see the Islamic site similar to this one?…A guy on the LA Pastafarians Wanted thread left a link…I’ve had a look and left a post…is interesting…
@Thumper
What I am suggesting is that the author of the book, if he believed in god, would have made the book about 3 or 2 degrees of separation, God being a person. But the best he could come up with was 6 degrees. So apparently he was claiming god does not exist. The major atheist sites should have this book noted. Very profound, but subtle for a best selling book. Most of his readers didn’t catch it, i guess.
@everyone
This is my point without the sarcasm. In an ordinary context if you consider all the people, no one counts god as a person. Only when you bring up religion with they say, oh yea and god’s a person too.
It’s like in ordinary life. If I ask “someone do you know where your car is?” They’d say “yes”. But now they are in a philosophy class. Do you KNOW where you parked your car? Now they don’t.
My point: When people aren’t being put on the spot to think, they know god is not a person and they know where there car is.
A religious way of looking at the world is not part of most people’s ordinary framework. It is tacked on to people’s outlook to consult if they need a backup reality for personal problems. Except for the fundies, of course, who at least try to see reality as the big picture, as bizarre as their concept is of that reality is.
@bILL
Ummmmmm…not sure I entirely agree…I didn’t get the earlier Kevin Bacon/disprove God thing because I assumed God was not a person…but then again if you asked me if I “knew” where the car was I’m the type to say “no” (even if we had alighted from it 10 mins earlier - it’s a lawyer thing that gives all my friend the shits)…I would have thought that only when speaking “casually” would someone refer to God as a person…when using precision of language (as in a religious discussion) he’d be an entity…I agree with you but just switched around a bit based on my personal experience.
@Bill
Sorry about the “bILL”…I had caps lock on…evidence of my point with respect to “casual” speak would be the way people constantly refer to God as “he” (thus humanising it)…obviously God has no need for a male sex organ sans a Goddess…although I guess the zealots always refer to “him” anyway…ummmm…this could be a new direction for the “Pursuit of God” site…have Mr Mills explain whether God has a penis and if so does he “exercise” sexual function when alone…I’m assuming no one else would be qualified to assist…
@Thumper
Your lawyer point is well taken. What I would suggest is that you and I have adopted a slightly different language from everyone else, because we have found that clearly defined terms are more precise. But in ordinary language, if you ask a Christian if there is anyone in the room with them, they will say ‘no’ and then you remind them that they are a Christian and then they say ‘oh yea’ God’s here.
As a lawyer, I don’t know what level you aspire to to say you know where your car is? Preponderance of evidence?, beyond reasonable doubt?, certainty,? or would give good odds if you knew you weren’t being set up for the bet?
But the point is that if an ordinary person using ordinary language tells you he knows where his car is and you don’t have good reason to believe it isn’t where he says, I’ll give 20/1 odds it is there and win the bet enough times to make money in the long run.
Back to the Christian point. I don’t believe that the ordinary Christian sees God everywhere when using ordinary language. Only when reminded of his metaphysical commitments does he ’sees god everywhere’. A sign to me that he is superimposing a belief structure on the world, not that he really “see’s God”
I can’t see how most people can really believe what they say they believe and so this is the way I take their belief claims. Claims they ignore until they are on their deathbed and then these beliefs will seem quite relevant.
@Bill
I certainly see your point with respect to the Christian being asked “are you alone in the room”…perhaps if you said, “are you alone” more generally they’d say “no…God’s here”…a Lawyer would say define alone…
.
With regard to lawyers and cars…I only know where the car is if I have actual knowledge of its whereabouts i.e. I can see it and identify it as my particular car (weight of extrinsic evidence does not give rise to actual knowledge). I have actual knowledge as to where I last left it and on the balance of probability (Aust civil standard) it will be there when I get back. If it’s not there when I get back I assume beyond a reasonable doubt (Aust criminal standard) that it’s been stolen…point is there’s only one level of actual knowledge…a christian may believe that he’s not alone in the room but doesn’t have actual knowledge as to whether this is or is not the case.
@Bill
Just to be clear…there is a difference between “actual” and “constructive” knowledge…constructive knowledge may depend on the weight of evidence i.e. I have constructive knowledge that the car is stolen if the thief telephones me from the road to say he’s just stolen my car…actual knowledge is again when I see him take it…another eg for a lawyer is when your employee may know something relevant to a case…the lawyer is taken to know it to…can’t say to the Court “my secretary forgot to show me that fax” as a defence to being sued (not speaking from personal experience)…bit off point but just in case you were wondering what I meant by “actual” knowledge.
@Thumper
Here’s another perspective and I realize it is in a different context from a witness on a stand sort of claim.
But imagine an ordinary conversation.
I’d like to borrow your car, do you know where it is?.
Sure.
Where is it?
It’s in my driveway
.
Did he lie or speak falsely when he said he knew it was in his driveway? I know on the stand he would be pressed for a different standard of ‘know’ but did he lie in ordinary language?
.
To follow up that not so interesting point, take a look at my car:
http://homepage.mac.com/billtomlinson/Logic/car.html
:-)
@Thumper
Didn’t see the actual vs constructive distinction until after i last posted. Looks interesting. I’ll look at it tomorrow. Sleep well guys.
@Bill
I guess he’s never lying if to the best of his knowledge, information or belief that the car is in the drive way…he can be wrong without being a liar…with respect to your car…with the greatest respect…I like the colours…
@Thumper
One more post before I sleep
I guess what I’m suggesting is that to say ‘I know something’ means different things in different contexts.
In a courtroom we hold a standard and make certain distinctions.
In philosophy the beginning student usually pushes it to the extreme.
In ordinarly language ‘I know that’ is meant as assurance or a guarantee or taking responsibility for the truth of somethin
So, if someone asks, you know where your car is? I say yea, out on the street.
But if the stakes go up and he says ‘you know where you car is, I have to take my sick friend to the hospital’, I may not be willing to give such easy assurance. My conjecture here is that in ordinary language, as apposed to a formal context, ‘I know that..’ means ‘I take responsibility for it being true that…’ It’s more like a promise than a statement of fact.
My own conjecture.
@Bill
You’re quite correct with respect to “casual” language…I tease my girl with this stuff all the time…she asks a simple question and gets the smart arse “overly correct” response…luckily I have other redeeming features…night William…