You’re going to hell for degrading god to a pile of noodles. Have fun burning for an eternity. -Erik Vavro
Connect
Contribute
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
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
Give
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
Miscellaneous
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
error the no should be note
fuck them
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Uuumm , big vocabulary you’ve got going there.
I just wanted to be the 1,000 poster here,
Did I do it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
post 10001!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! shows how popular FSM is.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
“does this mean that when it was commonly believed that the Earth was flat it really was?” Of course not, but it was probably the most justified thesis at the time.
Look, they had good reasons. If the earth were round then the water then the oceans would have fallen off a long time ago. From their perspective it was the best they come up with. They didn’t think of ‘down’ as relative to the earths gravitational field. Not a concept then. They thought of ‘down’ as an absolute “Down”.
This comes up so much with the people I talk to but you have to make the distinction between what is true, what is justified, and what is believed. They are all different concepts. But what is justified at one time is our best foundation for our best assessment at that time for what is true.
Meanwhile, we have to realize that in a few years it may not be the most justified at that time, and thus at a later time we may have to change our judgement, based upon the new information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@varthonai
To add a bit that may not have addressed your point directly. When someone says somethin is a ‘fact’ they mean it is agreed upon conventionally. That doesn’t mean it is true, i.e. what corresponds to reality. It’s a semantical distinction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@varthonai
To add a topper for clarification. Not all facts are true and not all truths are facts. To tell someone that something is a fact is to make a statement about the conventional knowledge. To tell someone that something is true is to say that what is said corresponds to reality. I don’t find statements that distinguish between ‘facts’ and ‘opinions’ as interesting. I think it’s much more important to focus on ‘what is justified’ and ‘what is not justified’. Truth? No direct connection to us, except that we know that our best guess is through what is justified.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He is going to spend eternity in New Jersey for parodying the ID vs. Evolution debate? Wow, like, that’s harsh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hell, seeing how I was brought up in a fundamentalist Mennonite school (note: paratroopers do not send your children there, they tend to be somewhat biased against the military) I can’t imagine a worse place. Maybe some parts of Ohio… no, you can get cool fireworks there. I say anywhere far from a port or easy access to the sea could be considered hell for Pastafarians, but his Great Noodliness is more than generous by providing institutions to celebrate his great saucy wonders to help us bide the time we are there. So I’d conclude that Ohio and the midwest would be more like a purgatory (with cool fireworks) or something like limbo. As for the concern of faith, faith is the negation of reason, reason is the method behind science which has provided mankind with everything from can openers to space flight. Faith is the method behind the Spanish Inquisition, dark ages, and other forms of torture and oppression in the past… so, what makes faith superior to reason (which also provided the theory of evolution), and what would prevent someone from using faith as a means to ask people to accept a governments slaughter in the effort to achieve a greater good (ie: Nazi’s, USSR, Polpot, etc.). Oh, reason cant be interchanged, because reason would dictate the people ask “how does killing thousands and millions of innocents achieve a greater good if any kind of good at all?”. Answer me oh guru of mumbo jumbo~~~~~
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@DreadPirateBen
“faith superior to reason (which also provided the theory of evolution)”
I’ve written some programs, simulations actually, where characters are playing each other in an interesting game and winning counts towards survival. At the end of a bit a time the character with the least points dies and a new character is formed that takes from the strategies (genes) of two of the characters with the highest points.
These entities start out as dumb as rocks with random strategies for any occasion. After not so long, a few 100 generation, they develop intelligent strategies. This is complexity theory. Anyone who sees this mechanism passed on and growth that occurs would have to be impressed with the creativity of what is possible with this Darwinian mechanisms. Life may have started by chance but it did not develop randomly and by chance. It had a natural mechanism that cleaned up its randomness really fast. I wish the ID people could appreciate the beauty and efficency of the mechanism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@addition
and simplicity of the mechanism
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
we don’t have a hell, only a heaven, with a stripper factory and beer volcano. Maybe your hell is our heaven! (and vice-versa)
for shizzle
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yay for pastafarianism! let his noodly appendage touch all of us, for it is great. yar. people are just jealous that the flying spaghetti monster can do more than walk on water, he can fly!! yar matees! beer volcanoes for all and strippers adjacent. sounds like a pirates life for me. sincerely, captain jack sparrow and crew
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ bill tomlinson
.
That’s true, Bill, but… that’s my whole point.
.
Maybe I should clarify my position. I think I’m being misinterpreted.
.
Point A: I am extremely pro-scientist. Scientists are intellectual and have questioning minds. I have absolutely nothing against any scientist, unless he’s a fundie scientist who does deliberately biased experiments.
.
Point B: I am extremely anti-science. I like the PURSUIT of science, which is conducted by scientists… but once we actually get to it, the atheist population accepts it as the truth in the same way that fundie Christians accept the Bible as truth, or fundie Muslims accept the Qu’oran as truth. Similarly, I am allied with the idea of teaching religious texts as literature and interpreting them in English classes, but I am opposed to fundamentalism.
.
Let me demonstrate the problem with allying yourself to just 1 religion. I will use the famous theory of Schroedinger’s Cat to illustrate my point:
.
Suppose you put a cat into a box with a giant laser cutter. The laser cutter is attached to a computer that is running a random number generator. After 15 seconds, the RNG will give a random number. If the RNG gives an even number, the laser cutter will fire and kill the cat. If the RNG gives an odd number, the laser cutter will do nothing. So, assuming that it is impossible to open the box ever again (say, because it locks shut from the inside and it’s made of impenetrable material) should you scientifically classify the cat as being alive or dead?
.
Schroedinger proposed that in a situation like this, where there is an equal chance of two events happening and it is impossible to tell which occured, they must be listed as having BOTH happened. The cat is both alive and dead. Not like a zombie, but like… look, if you were better at science, it would make more sense. Ok?
.
Anyway, it’s the same thing with religion. Each religion is a different possibility and is equally likely to be true, and by the time we learn which one was right, it’ll be too late because the God of that religion will damn everybody else to his respective Hell, Underworld, Niflheim, Tartarus, etc.
.
So, yeah. It kinda blows.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
I’ve looked at the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics and don’t agree with it. It’s almost as if they are saying that something is true and false at the same time, or they are saying something is neither true nor false (probably the first). I think it confuses the concept of truth with the concept of being justified.
They did that in those days with logical positivism and logical empiricism being dominant philosophies. “What cannot be confirmed is neither true nor false”.
The best book I’ve read on this and read the whole book, which I rarely do is ‘beyond measure’. by jim baggot.
He follows the classic debates between Einstein and Bohr and the rest. It is a great read. But the Copenhagen interpretation is a philosophical interpretation of a scientific result. The multi-worlds view is another. I side with neither. I know the double slit experiment and entanglement give us problems, but let’s make the distinction from what science says and how we interpret it.
Entanglement is a fact, the result of the double slit experiment is a fact (In the sense that it is agreed upon that it happens, not that we can 100% know it happens) Is entanglement really true? Whose to say but I would say it’s what we need to take as true right now. I have some problems with entanglement but don’t understand it precisely to argue with it.
Will we find a better interpretation for the double-slit experiment and entanglement? I would guess yes!
I think most scientists believe (but I could be wrong) that almost every fundamental principle we subscribe to now is probably wrong. But we subscribe to them because it’s our best guess and we change our belief to a better guess when the crucial experiment sways us.
I know some scientists are scientists because they are looking for certainty, but all they really get is the most reasonable position available at this time. Certainty, about the world, is always out of reach. Scientists should realize that and the religious should realize that. If you need certainty about the world, this is not your world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
“I like the PURSUIT of science, which is conducted by scientists… but once we actually get to it, the atheist population accepts it as the truth in the same way that fundie Christians accept the Bible as truth, or fundie Muslims accept the Qu’oran as truth. Similarly, I am allied with the idea of teaching religious texts as literature and interpreting them in English classes, but I am opposed to fundamentalism.”
.
This would have to be the most seriously sensible thing anyone has ever said on this web site.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
The difference, I believe between fundamentalists and scientists is that fundamentalists will not give up his belief no-matter what.
The scientist will give up his belief, he may get rid of Dawrinianism, Einsteinianism or Copernicianism. But he will not give up his method for finding and confirming the best estimation of the truth at that time. The Scientist is committed to a METHODOLOGY for discovery and a way to change his/her beliefs. The fundamentalists are committed to specific beliefs.
Why hasn’t anyone ever said that before? (Or am i just out of the information loop, which i suspect is more likely to be true)
But this seems like the best argument against those who claim that science is just another kind of religion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Spotted Zebra
Hey there Spotted Zebra how are you. How’s the parrot? :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is a great way of putting it bill. Thank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The fundamentalists are committed to specific beliefs.”
This looks like a good time (I personally think anytime is a good :) to wheel out the AiG Statement of Faith (YECs) link again:
.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp?vPrint=1
.
Really says it all!
(And once again thanks to Captain Noodulous Silicate TBHNA for finding that gem :)
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just can’t resist quoting my favourite part of that faith statement:
.
“(D) GENERAL
6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since I found that here I keep quoting it to people. I just love that statement, and the fact they still call it science!
*
It’s snowing really hard here now. Must be the hard work of us Dutch Pastafarians.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Red DutchPasta Kidd
“Since I found that here I keep quoting it to people.”
I’ve found it invaluable too. Love just waiting for the right moment and always make sure I quote #6 rather than just link it. :)
.
Normally at this time of year, (30-35 degree daily temps common here now) I’d beg you to send some of that snow this way. However over the past ten days or so, it’s been raining endlessly, so I’m not as jealous at usual.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Apparently I’ve been up your way RedDutchPasta Kidd, but I don’t remember going there at the time. I must have passed out early!
.
Australia Gets Drunk, Wakes Up In North Atlantic
http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.shtml
.
Thanks Alchemist. Just you wait til we come by up your way :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I feel sorry for the south-amaricans though ;), what did they ever do to you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Too bloody right!
.
“We still have part of Jamaica stuck to north Queensland”
Hmmm, so we now have a pastafarian wench among the rastafarians. :P Pasta mon!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Wench Nikkiee
You mean Capt’n Sick??? He’s semi retired and is now writing policy for the Federal Government…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have you checked the rest of satirewire out. Some bloody good stuff on it! I’m trying to write some for uncyclopedia but the “I’m not worthy” feeling gets in the way.
.
I think the Tykes and Aussie thing could be expanded. For some strange reason we seem to hold similar views.
.
Watch out world Mwhahahah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nice article Nikkiee.
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Australians don’t drink coal juice!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@bluey
Have you tried wiping it over your body. Gets rid of the drop bears like a beaut :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well. I’ll be buggered if the bloody Aussies are taking over!
Tykeland is where it’s at
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Yorkshire
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Tykeland is where it’s at”
Yeah yeah…me blue ‘eeler could beat them tykes at chricket with one leg tied behind his tail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He’s even been in the movies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p64yUG3VAVE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hahahahaha
Poor doggie!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hahahaha. I’ll set me Cairn onto thee! He’s a bugger! You mark me words!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
“Suppose you put a cat into a box with a giant laser cutter. The laser cutter is attached to a computer that is running a random number generator. After 15 seconds, the RNG will give a random number. If the RNG gives an even number, the laser cutter will fire and kill the cat. If the RNG gives an odd number, the laser cutter will do nothing. So, assuming that it is impossible to open the box ever again (say, because it locks shut from the inside and it’s made of impenetrable material) should you scientifically classify the cat as being alive or dead?
.
Schroedinger proposed that in a situation like this, where there is an equal chance of two events happening and it is impossible to tell which occured, they must be listed as having BOTH happened. The cat is both alive and dead. Not like a zombie, but like… look, if you were better at science, it would make more sense. Ok?
.
Anyway, it’s the same thing with religion. Each religion is a different possibility and is equally likely to be true, and by the time we learn which one was right, it’ll be too late because the God of that religion will damn everybody else to his respective Hell, Underworld, Niflheim, Tartarus, etc.
.
So, yeah. It kinda blows.”
.
..MY REPLY..
In the CAT situation this is true…they both have a 50/50 probability (at least until it dies of thirst in 3 or 4 days), however; you cannot equate this to Religion and Logic/Science. If a specific concept of God or religion can be logically contradicted, it reduces the probability (likelyhood) of that option. The option no longer is 50/50. Science and Logic are based on probability, religion is not. If the random generator (in your cat scenerio) gave a random number based only on 2,4,6,8& 9…the probabilty would no longer be 50/50 but rather 80/20. Even though we can still never know if the cat is alive or dead, we can determine that it is MORE LIKELY that the cat is dead than not. This is more like the situation with comparing religion and science. One has more of a logical basis and more probability (depending on the evidence of the theory), the other has no basis, and usually many logical contradictions depending on the actual religion and its scriptures. You are incorrect in assuming both to have the same probability (50/50)…just because both have a level of uncertainty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Bluey. You could always visit me.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/285168/yorkshire_airlines
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HAHAHAHA
Flock of Seaguls in Luxury!
hahahaha I got that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick
Let’s find the true religion. First list them all. If some religion could go either way with an interpretation, list it as two religions each with one of the interpretations. Then throw away all the self-contradictory ones. Then throw away all the ones that have flawed moral principles. Then throw away all the ones that have by their very nature lead to human misery. Now let’s assume at least one is right and divide the probabilities between them proportionally with the positive evidence for them. But how many are left? Just two!
.
Ramen, Namen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
FSM and IPU??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick
Negativo
Hit my name for foundation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahhh…The negation of gods…I like it.
I read your article on morals. I wrote a small view on morals myself on my website: http://www.tricksplace.com/views/001-Atheism_Not_EqualTo_Poor_Morals.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think I’m trying to explain my ideas at too advanced a stage. I haven’t laid out the fundamental principles (no pun intended) yet.
Let’s start with the most basic principle:
What is truth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick tried to hit your site 3 times from netscape kept given me an error message. I did it from EI and connected but not without an error message. Thought you should know but I’m there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@’trick
I got there but stalled when I saw a reasonably good principle
A moral action is an action that is logically concluded to achieve the maximum cumulative happiness for all living things within our realm of knowledge, using our most up to date information an analysis of the subject for which the moral is defined
That stalls me out right there. It’s a good starting position but have you considered the possible problems? Suppose you have to kill one person to save 2, and you are reasonable assuried that all will experience the same amount of happiness in their lifes if they live, or at least less unhappiness. Do you kill him to maximize the happiness? It would seem you would have to by your theory of goodness, but that doesn’t seem like something a good person would do to me. What do you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Varthonai
“What is truth?”
A statement is true if it corresponds with the way things are
another way
A statement is true if it corresponds with reality.
Let me go on
How many realities are there? One
But
How many concepts of reality are there More than the number of people on the planet.
So how do we decide the truth?
The best guide is to figure out what is most plausible, probable.
Let me interject here.
The problem with having more than one reality is a problem of communication or language. If you and I are not in the same reality then nothing you can say will even reach me. But
If we can agree that you and are our in the same reality then there is one reality between us. There is one truth for us if we can communicate, but that does not tell us that either of us know that truth. Maybe neither of us does.
Tell me if this helps or confuses.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
‘Trick
I have to be more careful. Instead of
“It would seem you would have to by your theory of goodness”
I should have said “It would seem you would have to, by your theory of goodness”
one comma makes it more readable.
Sorry
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@bill
.
I’m shocked, bill. I had so much respect for you. You’re arrogant enough to assume that you can define a moral action?! You’re a human! I’m a demigod, with near-omniscience, and even I can’t define something like that!
.
Oh, wait. That was just your theory. I see. You still have my respect, then. Sorry.
.
Well, I’d have to disagree, bill. If it were a choice between saving one person and saving two, then your theory would apply; but not KILLING one person to save two. If that were the choice then I would let the two die, (unless one of them was my beloved family member, lover, or good friend, in which case I would be justified in killing the person because acts of love are beyond good and evil.)
.
To be quite honest, though, I’d have to say that morals are totally subjective. No one view of them can ever be correct. In some societies, the majority’s benefit at the expense of the minority is moral; in others, the exploitation of a minority is so horrendous that it is better for the minority and majority to suffer in equality.
.
Also, you’re basing the idea of what will achieve the “maximum cumulative happiness of all living things” on logic. I’ll be frank; logic is well and good for people who like order, but the pro-chaos guys like me aren’t big fans of it. Order screws everything up. Order makes totalitarianism… or worse yet, boredom.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damn, I’m going off on tangents again… gotta stay focused on the issue. Please disregard my last couple of posts if you haven’t already replied to them.
Bill, you’re on the right track. Now, second question:
What is reality?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Varthonai Feb 10th, 2007 at 12:36 am
Bill, you’re on the right track. Now, second question:
What is reality
.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You got it Dude!!!!!!!!
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0