1. Do you know any building that did not have a builder? Yes? No?
2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes? No?
3. Do you know any car that did not have a maker? Yes? No?
If you answered “Yes” to any of those statements… please give details:______________________…
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
Building with no builder=cave
This one seems pretty self-explanatory.
Painting with no painter=flower
This might sound as if I’m waxing poetic, but I figure that paintings are just an arrangement of pigments on some medium, usually canvas. Since the colors in a flower are natural pigments, I figure that this works.
Car with no maker is a tougher one. I guess that these days most cars are put together by robots, not people, so you might be able to make the argument that the car has no maker, or at least no living or conscience maker, although the things that make the car had a maker, and the car was designed by people, even if they did not do the actual construction. Side note, they do have robots that have designed and built other robots. I think that is really neat.
Do you know any super-natural being that did not have a parent?
If yes, please explain how he came to be…
How is that any different from a building, painting, or car?
Why is this in Hate Mail?
No, but I do know of a comment poster that did not have a brain. If this is the logic that is used for creating an entire belief system I pity you. One can always give the chance of a creator a .001 percent chance of having actually existed and created the universe. But if you decide to teach that idea you are not discovering anything you are only reaffirming what you gave already been told. You can not test whether or not there is godliness in something. One thing I take pride in is the fact that I do not need to know everything about everything but if I did I would use a source that is less than 2000 years old and wasn’t subject to a 2000 year game of telephone. Scientists can only show what the Universe was like when it was 3 trillionths of a second old, I know it’s not the definitive answer to your life but I still think it is commendable. I assume that you are open to the idea of a God, I hope that you can open your heart to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is He that will teach you not to be such a jerk.
2. Do you know any painting that did not have a painter? Yes.
I forgot who it was, but there was an artist who bumped a cart and his tray of colours fell onto a canvas that was propped against the cart. The tray stuck on the canvas and then slid down. The end result was hung at MoMA for a few months in NYC.
How clever, you copied and pasted something from another hate mail to seem smart. Good for you!
And this is the worst of questions. It gives us only one option. However, if we answer no to these questions, that doesn’t mean god exists. In fact, it denies his existance because god was not made by someone, according to you people.
I’m so sick of seeing these stupid questions copied and pasted here, I mean don’t they realize that we’re not as simpleminded as they.
1. no
2. no
3. no
so what’s you’re point?
oh, i get it, you mean humans were made by a humaner!!
No
No
No
We’re not saying there is no creator. We’re saying it’s the FSM is the creator, albeit an occasionally drunk/unintelligent one.
My good sir, this has been used before. It still does not disprove the existence of the FSM.
May you be touched by his noodly appendage.
Didn’t someone already send a hatemail in phrased almost exactly like that?
This is where other religions fall by the wayside. I can empirically back up the FSM in conversations that are hours long, and yet every hate-mail that comes in seems to follow almost the exact same rhetoric.
Let us thank his noodly appendage for blessing us with a religion so true to the fabric of the universe itself that it cannot be denied.
1: Ever seen a beehive, or an anthill?
2: Look out the window, silly person. Even better, climb a mountain and enjoy the view, or look at the sky.
3: Cars are a recent HUMAN invention. Does a whale need wheels? Does a bird have brakes?
Typical narrow-minded human-centric thinking. Nature was here long before us, and will be here long after we are gone.
Sarky, rhetorical muppet!
To the author of the post, who remains anonymous:
Ah…we’ve seen this before. It gets a little old, actually. Of course, we’re all supposed to think for a second, have a religious epiphany, and become born-agains, right? Why can’t the universe just exist, without some mystical cause? You, I guess, would allow that jehovah can just exist, forever and always, but not the universe. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
On the other hand, the FSM has always existed, and always will. RAmen.
First of all, you deserve congratulations for the proper grammar, punctuation and coherency, as well as allegory in your questionnaire. But the larger issue is the fact that you have missed the point- this is a religion. We DO believe that the car has a maker, so to speak. A noodly one.
no
no
no
and the final unasked question: do you know any planet that did not have a maker?
no, t’was the FSM ofc!!
deja vu?
This argument again?
All of those are man-made (maybe with the exception of the building).
You can’t extend that into the argument over who created animals, because we aren’t inanimate objects,
and no one can be sure that we were “made” by some sentient being.
If what you are trying to do is, as most creationidiots does, to compare the universe to.
A. A building.
B. A painting.
C. A car.
You are.
1. An idiot.
2. Someone without any education.
3. 1. and 2. combined.
Do you know any IDiot without a point?