I THINK U GUYS ARE DECIEVED BY THE DEVIL AND HIS SPIRITS. MAKING THIS STUFF UP IS MERELY CREATED BY SOMEONE AND ITS AN EXCUSE TO HAVE AND DO WHAT UWANNA DO AND I FEEL THAT SOME SPAGHETTI MONSTER CANT EXPLAIN THE UNEXPLAINED AND CANT HELP ME SPIRITUALLY AS I COME TO REALIZE CHRIST HELPS ME MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY AND I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS TRUE AND TRY HIM CHRIST IS REAL AND PERSONALLY THATS MY EVIDENCE. PEOPLE ITS ALL MADE UP THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER ISNT REAL
-kathleen
i think u guys are decieved by the devil
Published by Bobby Henderson December 16th, 2008 in Hate Mail (and concerned criticism). 549 Comments
549 Responses to “i think u guys are decieved by the devil”
Jew Jew, didn’t someone get thier father drunk, and rape him IN THE bIBLE and get knocked up by him? Or was it 2 sisters? Humph. They had to be following the bible to a “T” because they were IN IT.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ 447 – St. Arrrrgyle
Right on! Sometimes I think they must be worshipping a monster!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ littleanimal
Agreed. God – “Thou shalt not kill – leave the killing to me.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do they realize it’s a JOKE?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“PEOPLE ITS ALL MADE UP THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER ISNT REAL” – Neither is Jesus, then? Personally I am very offended. I wouldn’t dream of saying to anyone of any other religion that their God is make-believe. And, i reckon this young lady wouldn’t either! Apart from to us pastafarians, that is. This is a sad world. Sniff.
Check it out – http://artyamy.deviantart.com/art/title-see-description-33186702 :)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“AND I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS TRUE AND TRY HIM CHRIST IS REAL AND PERSONALLY THATS MY EVIDENCE.”
I wonder if she actually knows the definition of evidence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
atheists/pastafarians… is your disbelief in the christian God due to lack of evidence, or disagreement of the Bible? also, who here would consider atheism a religion?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There’s no proof GOD exsists, is there? Well, this is OUR explanation for creation. Stop using God as an excuse for being a narrow-minded jerk, okay? Respect other’s beliefs, will ya?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would call this a run-on sentance. How bout you? Does this mean that I am smarter than this non-believing liar? Holy pasta!
This is a sad world where Christians think they have all the rights to tell other people to shut up about their beliefs. Well…I WON’T TAKE IT!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Kathleen:
Seeing all the comments of my fellow believers makes me realize I would rather belong to a society of them as opposed to a society of humorless Christians. Maybe this is what we CHOOSE to believe, and we like darn well enough!
Besides-you have terrible grammar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I… I… I continue to lose faith in humanity every time I see an email like this… It seems as though grammar is no longer of import in today’s world… Oh, and that people should just go out and shout out their opinions at the top of their lungs as fast as they can, with no pauses… even for breathing…
-Cap’m Red Tom
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that the devil has better things to do then make us all believe in our great Noodly Lord.
This is a transcript of what some guy standing on a box screamed at passerby in the subway, I believe. Dear Kathleen was simply carrying on his message.
Wait…why is all the hate mail from Christians?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ eardrum (#457)
Thank you for being so polite; I hope you come back to read the responses you will get. For me, personally, the answers to you questions are as follows:
1)Both
2)I don’t consider Atheism a religion so much as a religious belief, because it does not necessarily have any accompanying institution, tenants of behavior, or “sacred” text – Pastafarianism on the other hand, is a religion and has all three of those things.
RAmen,
Sarah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
this is just disgusting…it is people like you that i hate!!! THe IPU(invisible pink unicorn) and FSM are trying to prove that there is just as much proof for them as there is for your so called jesus or Nazareth or fucking “holy spirit” honestly read your bibl;e a tad closer and think “why does theis have no DIRECT quotes or passages from “jesus” and could this just have been made up by a bunch of guys on acid or shrooms or some shit???
much love and peace
Bite my ass Barbie!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hope the hypocrites who are writing these emails straighten their asses up by the time they turn ten.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SPIRITUALLY YOUR RETARED! and were is the evidence, + WE HAVE MORE EVIDENCE THAN YOU NANANANANANANNANANNANANN!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesus Christ and “god” are just as fictional as the spaghetti monster. The only difference is that jesus and god were made up by people that were 2000 years stupider. Well honestly, do you know how stupid the human race was back then… You see as history porgresses that eventually alot of the human race realizes, what the hell are we doing wasting our sundays trying to please a 2000 year old god that doesnt even exist. And every christian story of creation is so completely ridiculous i have a hard time keeping a straight face even thinking about it. Especially when the theory of evolution has been PROVEN…
if anyone has any opinions or arguments against what i am saying, please feel free to e-mail me at ohley_800@hotmail.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I THINK U GUYS ARE DECIEVED BY THE DEVIL AND HIS SPIRITS. MAKING THIS STUFF UP IS MERELY CREATED BY SOMEONE AND ITS AN EXCUSE TO HAVE AND DO WHAT UWANNA DO AND I FEEL THAT SOME SPAGHETTI MONSTER CANT EXPLAIN THE UNEXPLAINED AND CANT HELP ME SPIRITUALLY AS I COME TO REALIZE CHRIST HELPS ME MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY AND I HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS TRUE AND TRY HIM CHRIST IS REAL AND PERSONALLY THATS MY EVIDENCE. PEOPLE ITS ALL MADE UP THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER ISNT REAL
Kathleen
Ya think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Although I find this site completely insulting, it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. This site is not an actual church. This is not intended to be a real religion. It is just a satire that makes fun of us christians. Let me stress how insulting this site is. I reall did almost get sick reading the letter. What amazes me is how scientists believe so strongly that they are right, when science has throughout the past been proven wrong, and continues to do so today. For example, science has the “Law of Conservation of Mass”. This “Law” is laughably incorrect, as the atom bomb disproves it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How can he help you “MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY” and were is your evidence and have you been taking to much lsd or did you just not get touched?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nick @ 469
Y’know, Nick, if you don’t want to believe in science, that’s fine. You can just sit over there with your friends, and we’ll be over here with reality. It’s cool. But if you want to discuss things, you’ll need to study better.
It’s the ‘Law Of Conservation of Mass and Energy’, and the atom bomb is *based* on it.
If you don’t want everybody thinking you’re a retard, you need to check up on these things….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@463 Sarah
i don’t feel the need to be a jerk about it… but you’re welcome.
1) to what degree of each, then? no elaboration?
2) wouldn’t the scientific community be the institution, complaining about religion be the tenants of behavior, and the “Origin of Species” be the sacred text?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I like how she CAP’d everything
EXCEPT FOR HER NAME.
Wow, Kathleen.
You suck at hate mail.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey Nick 469, although I find your comment completely insulting, it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about. Let me stress how insulting your comment is. I really almost got sick reading it. What amazes me is how the religious people believe so strongly that they are right(this is called faith) when churches have throughout the past been proven wrong and continue to do so today. For example, Galileo was condemned by the Church of Rome(the biggest single denomination to this day) for heresy as he disbelieved the dogma that the sun went around the Earth. That dogma is laughably incorrect, though I won’t be surprised if you think it may be true.
PS: If you so much distrust the scientists, why are you using the internet? In case you forgot, it was invented by scientists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Do you have any idea how offensive that is to us satanists? Really, “God” hasn’t helped anyone that much.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For people whoa re “deeply offended” or “sickened” by this website… you really need to relax. It’s not like they tried to take a shot at the Pope, which, incidentally wouldn’t bother me, I’m not Catholic. I liked the old Pope better, he was old & cute and didn’t wear designer shoes. He drove around in that cool Popemobile that reminded me of a snowglobe. I think all Catholics should be deeply offended and sickened by themselves for worshipping a fake idol such as the Pope, he’s not part of the Holy Trinity you love so much, but you still act like he is the second coming. I like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He is something that we can pray to every Wednesday, which is pasta night at my house. Plus you get all that yummy parmesan cheese.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Show us the evidence there Kathleen! Yeah the devil has us in his grip. No wait…are we actually thinking for ourselves instead of believing dogmatic bullshit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“For example, science has the “Law of Conservation of Mass”. This “Law” is laughably incorrect, as the atom bomb disproves it.”
AHAHAHAH OH MAN YOU CAN’T BE SERIOUS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@469 Nick
That’s not new news, soon as they theorized atomic energy it was changed. Now the Law of Conservation of Mass makes an exception for atomic reactions. Either you never paid attention in class, or your textbooks were from before the 1950’s. In either case an atomic reaction changes mass to energy at a fixed rate, so the energy before a reaction (trapped in mass) is equal to the energy after a reaction (light, heat, force and radiation).
What is truly laughable is that you think science being proven wrong implies the church is right. I mean who do you think does the proving? I’ll let you in on a secret, it’s other scientists! For every scientist proven wrong about something it’s another scientist being proven right. And you know what? Nobody has ever started an inquisition or a genocide over it. The instant the pope comes out with a cutting edge theory that proves anything in physics is the day I convert.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nick clearly does not know how an atom bomb works.
Atom bombs do not violate the conservatory nature of mass.
Take some physics courses, or is that against the christian will?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
eardrum, it’s so pathetic you don’t know the difference between a scientific text and a sacred text. But, what can I expect from a troll.
I am sure you consider baldness a hairsyle.
Is your disbelief in FSM because of a Freudian complex or a personal grudge against prophet Bobby?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This awesome i love FSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!worshipo the samurai banana
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@472 eardrum
1) Hmm, I’m not sure what you mean by “to what degree” but I’ll try to elaborate. Being non-Christian is not the same thing as being an Atheist; a non-Christian is someone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is/was the son of God, and an Atheist is someone who believes that there is/are no god/gods. I am not a Christian because the content of the Bible and the stories about Jesus Christ being the son of God are inconsistent with what I know and understand of the world. I am an Atheist because I have seen no evidence for the supernatural, and I have come to believe that it does not exist – I cannot prove it does not exists, and I know that, but I have come to believe that it is very unlikely.
2) You clearly do not know what an atheist (or a scientist, for that matter) is, and I have to admit, listing “complaining about religion” as a tenant of behavior for Atheists was really quite obnoxious, but I will try calmly explain myself anyway. An Atheist is someone who believe there is no God/gods, period – how or why someone came to this conclusion or whatever else they believe is irrelevant. You do not need to believe in the scientific method in order to be an Atheist, nor, for that matter, do you need to be an Atheist in order to be a scientist (e.g Darwin, whose theories were scientific, was not an Atheist, while Freud, whose theories were largely not scientific, was).
As for the scientific community, to what community are you referring? I am aware of many, and none of them have anything to do with Atheism. A scientist is anyone who observes the physical world through the use of the scientific method – God is per se supernatural, and therefore cannot be observed or measured; this means that the scientific method cannot be applied to him. Simply put, the existence of God is a philosophical question and not a scientific one; the two really have little to do with one another.
I’m going to skip your “complaining about religion” comment because it’s just too ridiculous; your claim that the “Origin of Species” is the sacred text of Atheism is almost as absurd, but it is a common claim of creationists, so I do want to address it. First of all, Atheism is a disbelief in the divine, therefore nothing can be per se sacred, and that includes Darwin’s book. Secondly, I can think of no Scientific theory that has been more thoroughly and rigorously tested than Darwin’s theory of evolution; and no, not all of his predictions were judged to be correct. In a sacred book, everything in it is thought to be above reproach, but the “Origin of Species” contains some very specific predictions (such as the claim that men are more intelligent than women, and this is because male-male competition is the driving force behind increases in human intelligence) that are not only not taken as gospel truth, but even mocked as pretty naive and stupid by modern scientists (who, just to remind you, are not necessarily Atheists). Finally, I’d like to reiterate that science and Atheism are two completely different things – there is absolutely nothing in the “Origin of Species” that promotes the concept of Atheism; creationists like to claim otherwise but they are forgetting two very important points: first, if one interprets the bible symbolically, it is possible (and common) for one to be a Christian and to believe that evolution has shaped life on this planet; and second, disbelief in the bible does not mean that one is an Atheist – there are other religions and religious beliefs out there.
I hope this answerers you questions.
RAmen,
Sarah
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ahahahhahhahahaa kathleen im not sorry for laughing at you but it’s just to sad.here’s a few things for you.one:are you saying that all religion is is something to explain the unexplainable?why in earth here?sorta stuff, if so see any kind of mental asylum and im sure they will help you.two if religion is a major part of your mental being i can only imagine it’s for the worst example:have you seen the 1976 horror movie “carrie”? i can only assume by the name,the text,and your name that you are the almost exact twin to that.two:i can only asume that you are almost a or are a person that lies in a hospital bed near death with life support keeping you alive because if your relying your physical being on “christ” then you are obviously doing absolutly nothing to keep healthy or in shape you just sit there trying to not look fake or attempting to be nonexistant which would explain the life support on the hospital bed much like “christ”.also “try him christ and real” is not at all evidence that “christ” exists and futhermore it only makes you seem more like you didn’t finish grade school.more on this if i prove to you something exists that contradicts your religion such as evolution then that disproves your religion.kathleen i have not lost all hope in you unlessd you decide not to go to the mental health asylum.
-RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lol.. I love everyone’s viciousness in disproving fairy tale-believers..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find it seriously hilarious, that truly the argument of church (or ID believers) is (as Penne Pete nicely says) “science proven wrong implies the church (again, ID believers) is right”. By “spaghetti”, does any religious person realise that? Blind faith works only for a few lousy hours after you write the exam (for example..:)) ) really terrible and then indulge in a few beers too many, that makes you believe you might actually pass the sh*t…
If you believe in blind faith, take a leap with bible… Some guys do it on a science based equipment (like flysuits n stuff)… Hmmm??!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello from Russia! I’m with you, people! Let’s spread the TRUE faith all over the word!
He touched me and now I REALLY know: yes, He exists!
Kathleen, you poor untouched soul! Please, don’t CRY! I strongly believe His appendage will touch you soon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seriously. If theres proof of a magic man in the sky that can solve all of my problems, I sure as hell would love to see it! But, there isn’t. You have just as much proof as we do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The instant the pope comes out with a cutting edge theory that proves anything in physics is the day I convert.”
it seems to me that the only people who are progressing in science are atheists or compromised theists who’ll accept the THEORY of evolution. is it because people of faith are unable to think scientifically, or because the moment a scientist proposes that maybe it’s not all a random, unguided, chaotic process, but a well organized system of adaptation, this scientist becomes an outcast, labeled an ignorant creationist with all credibility ripped away?
is it such a leap of faith to think that the earth is ~10,000 years old as opposed to “a bagillion-zillian-fo-reallian” years old? That carbon-14 dating is based off the assumption that “there should be this much carbon in it, and if there’s not, then this is REALLY old… thats little kid logic, yeah technically its provable and repeatable, but it’s bad science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hey eardrum, thanks for the extra laughs. Obviously you have no understanding of meaning of the word theory, or how radio-isotope dating works, but that’s just fine, I know those are not things you are taught when you are home-schooled. (Neither are proper spelling, capitilization and punctuation, for that matter). You know, when a scientist starts to question the THEORY of electromagnetism, saying that cell phones work not because of Maxwellian ruminations but because there are ghosts that leap from phone to phone, they lose more than just their credibility. Is it such a leap of faith to think the world was created by a Spaghetti Monster (may the sauce be with Him) as opposed to a sadomasochistic genocidal bearded man in the clouds?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@eardrum, #489
“is it such a leap of faith to think that the earth is ~10,000 years old as opposed to “a bagillion-zillian-fo-reallian” years old? That carbon-14 dating is based off the assumption that “there should be this much carbon in it, and if there’s not, then this is REALLY old… ”
You might want to take some time to brush up on your understanding of radiometric dating techniques, there, Sparky. There’s no assumption that there should be x amount of anything. You measure the radioactive isotope and you measure the daughter products. To make that “leap of faith” requires suspension of a good chunk of reality.
RAmen
ET
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@489 eardrum
“it seems to me that the only people who are progressing in science are atheists or compromised theists who’ll accept the THEORY of evolution.”
I really couldn’t put it better myself. The only people progressing in science ARE the ones who don’t say “god must have done it. Let’s call it a day”. Like many others I see you have misunderstood the meaning of ‘theory’ in science.
“is it because people of faith are unable to think scientifically, or because the moment a scientist proposes that maybe it’s not all a random, unguided, chaotic process, but a well organized system of adaptation, this scientist becomes an outcast, labeled an ignorant creationist with all credibility ripped away?”
Well a person of faith who can think scientifically is usually labeled a “compromised theist” by people like you. Which is kinda dismissive of them and all the work they may have done. But anyway, any scientist that proposes there is an unseen guiding force to the universe, yet has no evidence, does lose their credibility. However it’s not because of their belief, but because belief without evidence is not science. Proposing that we throw out everything we know about the world because that one man has a gut feeling someone is watching him is beyond ludicrous.
“is it such a leap of faith to think that the earth is ~10,000 years old as opposed to “a bagillion-zillian-fo-reallian” years old?”
Yes it’s a leap of faith because the evidence tells us the exact opposite. That is pretty much the definition of a leap of faith. Do you even understand your own argument? You are asking us to ignore what we can see and measure because you say it’s wrong but have no proof.
“That carbon-14 dating is based off the assumption that “there should be this much carbon in it, and if there’s not, then this is REALLY old… thats little kid logic, yeah technically its provable and repeatable, but it’s bad science.”
A perfect example of cognitive dissonance. You admit that carbon dating is provable and repeatable. Which makes it good science. Yet because you don’t like what the facts say you pretend that they’re not facts. I’m certain my 8 year old nephew would understand the (provable, repeatable, measurable) logic of carbon dating. I think I’ll get him to type my next post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Caps lock is cruise control for cool but you still need to use the steering wheel……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@483 Sarah
Nice post, but you’re really wasting your time. It’s a lot like teaching Computational Methods in Mathematics to a chimpanzee. It’s interesting and engaging for a short while, but ultimately pointless and boring. The chimp is just missing too many of the core courses.
Ramen, though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
eardrum – Were you aware that you are 98% genetically identical to a chimpanzee? And that fact doesn’t even require a belief in evolution, just a chemistry set.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Eardrum: If you want to believe in God, fine. If you want to disbelieve in evolution, I’ll roll my eyes a little, but when you ask if too much to believe that the earth is only 10K years old, YES – IT IS.
Why do you say carbon dating is provable and repeatable, yet bad science? Is there some uncertainty? Sure – perhaps even 20%, meaning the earth would only be 4 billion years old, not 5.
And why just focus on carbon dating? There are dozens of other proofs, all concluding that the earth is a few billions of years old. If your god created everything only a few thousand years ago, why are we seeing light from stars billions of light-years away?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth”.–Psalms 58:6
Ramen,
Archie
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
eardrum (489), you friggin sheep:
1. Scientists do show a well orginized system of adaptiation (both in evolution and in other areas, such as the orginization of the cosmos and the creation of elements). Chaotic processes are sometimes involved, but no scientist was ever labled ignorant for believing in this type of “adaptation” – only for believing in creationism… that is justified since there is NO proof for it. Prehaps you don’t understand the implications of entropy, and that is why you think physics shows only random chaotic processes and no orginization. Read a goddamn science book for christ’s sake.
2. the Earth is between 4.55 – 4.6 Billion years old. making up silly ass non-existant numbers doesn’t disprove anything.
3. Carbon 14 decays at a given rate into a known isotope EVERY TIME IT DECAYS, so looking at how much C14 vice N14 (the isotope it decays into) tells you how much C14 there was, and how much has decayed and since you know how fast it decays – bingo, no dogma here. Secondly, C14 dating is only good for going back about 60000 years or so, not 4.6 billion. If C14 dating is a bad technique, tell me why it works well in dating things when we know how old they are (such as egyptian mummies, for example). If it can work for 4000 year old mummies, you’d better have some proof it DOESN’T work for things “suposed to be” older that the ~10000 years old your world aparently is. Why sould I believe C14 is bad technique. Accepting everything your pastor tells you is little kid logic (a grown up told me, so it must be so)!
Read a book, and not the bible.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey, just to let you know:
1)I can just tell by the first SENTENCE that you are a vrey devoted Christian, and
2)You are sadly mislead if you belive that god created 2 people (Adam and Eve)to be husband and wife and have kids for the whole world? Becasue if this is true, we are all cross-bred and are sadly mis-formed and so we are not made in the image of this so-called “God”.
That is my opinion,
Thank you
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
eardrum #489:
“technically its provable and repeatable, but it’s bad science”.
ROFLMAO. PROVABLE & REPEATABLE. My idea of good science. Bad how? Bad as in ” BAAd science! BAD! Go to your room now!You know not to make creationism look stupid!!”? As for a “well organised system of adaptation” I tend to refer to this as evolution. Doesn’t need to have a Supreme Organiser.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0