Fallacy of your satire

Published June 14th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

Hello, I have purchased and read your book, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and I would just like to share with you a constructive feedback of your book. For its objective purpose of proving the illogicality of the provincial-minded nature of those who stand in opposition to allowing the scientific theory of the Big Bang/Theory of Evolution from being taught publicly, it served its purpose well. However I would like to call to mind the hypocritical nature of the book. I believe consistency with one’s own message is important to achieve a total victory and it satirically charges Christians with creating blind assumptions. I understand the comparison of pirate decrease to global temperature increase was to further the point of the illogicality of religion, but you assumed there was a lesser amount of pirates. In fact there are more pirates now than there was in the 1700′s, the lack of the Pirates of the Caribbean-esque romanticism is the only reason this fact is not widely spread. You made an assumption which went against fact which defeated your principle of factual basis. One may argue that was the continuation of satire but that would be most likely incorrect as the faux-correlation of coincidence is the satire and not the actual analyzes as global temperature is indeed rising since the last minor ice age in the Napoleonic Era.

Furthermore it appears you attack religion as a whole entity as illogical and we’d be better off it was nonexistent as the end of the book turns into repetitive bashing, This is the same mindset as the illogical fundamentalists whom do not hear the logic of scientific theory who completely disregard science as it is alien to their beliefs. Religion is extremely important in its influence in sociology as it combats the modern mainstream schools of thought such as widespread apathy, post-modernism and rampant sensationalism. It teaches values of selflessness and charity opposing the media advocacy of self-service which even in an evolutionary sense is not nature as we are social animals which rely upon societal advancement, not just the advancement of self. Religion plays a large role in academic studies as well, I’m sure you’re aware that one of the theorists of the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest. To the (logically) theistic, the belief in God does not interact with evolution or creation as God is a theory pertaining to spiritual well being while evolution pertains to physical creation. Religion (or belief in God) does not isolate one from logic, rather the fallacy assuming that because one is religious they must abandon reason. I think if you had pulled back on the senseless bashing of theists and made it rather a criticism of the solely illogical due to their ignoring of blatant scientific evidence even the Pope would have agreed with you. Book such as the one of your own writing are dangerous as human beings tend to take the extremity of each end, by the extensive mockery of the religious you isolate them while creating a malicious current in atheists against theists, which is academically wrong as scholarly debate should be through procedure of logic but your book goes from such to foolery. Such anti-God contempt creates social hysteria making people, for example, atheistic in assumption of its logic while in fact they have little intelligence to even contemplate the bane of their existence.This correlates with the thesis of The Prince as one should be firm in their own beliefs and adhered to logic but they can also not crush the other side as that creates blatant opposition for the sake of opposition rather than following a conventional and more satisfying procedure of scholarly victory.

I hope your book has accomplished your objective and enlightens the close-minded Kansas Board of Education.

Maroun Shami


This is the type of email I like to receive.  I don’t agree with a lot of what Maroun is saying but I have a lot of respect for him voicing his criticism.  –bobby

226 Responses to “Fallacy of your satire”

1 4 5 6 7 8 14
  1. tekhedd says:

    @Maroun Well… I clicked here to see your not-very-loved comment, and immediately saw why it was hidden. Pointing out flaws in your arguments is not “distortion”. Have you considered a career as a right-wing pundit?

  2. Drained and Washed Clean says:

    “The Holy Books I wouldn’t say are confused, they just require an understanding of context and textual criticism to fully comprehend the development of an idea”

    First, the books have been distorted by humans through multiple translations. Words that did not even exist at that time are now in the bible. That in itself makes it a confusing book as one tries to decipher the “real meaning” from man’s translation.

    Second, they tell different stories. Have you read the New Testament horizontally? I have just started a book, “Jesus Interrupted”. A fascinating read about the inconsistencies in the stories of Jesus and in the New Testament, why all these stories are different (some blatantly disagreeing). I have just begun, but it is very interesting to know that ministers are all taught these inconsistencies in seminary, but never feel it necessary to share with their flock. If you put the stories together, you actually lose the idea that each individual writer (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) was trying to get across. I am not very far in, but that is what I have gathered so far.

    Third, there are flat out inaccuracies. The idea of the world flood can be found in mythology much older than Christianity. The slaughter of the innocents never happened. The Earth did not stop rotating just for Joshua. Mary wasn’t a virgin.

    I cannot speak to the Qu’ran as much since I have not studied it as in-depth. However, the bible has been put together, taken apart, books added, books taken away, mistranslated, re-mistranslated, and still people offer credibility. The book is as confused as the people who have worked over the centuries to make it, especially since many of those people were on a power grab.

  3. tekhedd says:

    @np237: “However, there is a rampant fallacy in your sayings: that religion is necessary to build up a morality.”

    Oh dear. You are so out of line with this comment!

    Sure, he strongly implies that without religious control, the unwashed masses will be out of control and bad stuff(TM) will happen. Certainly this is the primary reason for social controls–the avoidance of lots of bad stuff(TM). But at no point does he /blatantly state/ this, and it is presumptuous of you to draw logical conclusions from someone’s writing simply because of what is clearly implied. Gosh!

  4. Insightful Ape says:

    Let me be sure I am getting maroun the moron straight.
    First, I catch him lying (he claimed he was not going to assume nonbeliever were inferior, while in fact he had done so). Then, faced with his own hypocrisy, he adds “I’m saying the people who assume atheism is logical therefore become atheist based on the assumption”. So it means atheists without the assumption that atheism is logical do not qualify as mentally inferior, I guess?
    In other words, I am an idiot, unless I consider my own viewpoint is illogical(!).
    Fascinating, isn’t it? When caught lying, he tries to cover his tracks by lying again. Except that he cannot do so without making the stupidest claim anyone can imagine.
    You know what, moron? You should be running for office. Your superb talent in deception and then tripping up has completely gone to waste. You missed your calling.
    PS: As always, I praise the almighty FSM for creating such idiotic, yet hilarious, trolls.
    PS2: I hope you are not “shaking your fist at me”, since “I am doing nothing wrong” by pointing out your true nature. I am writing only because “feedback is important”, “utilizing the same rights you did” when you wrote in the first place.

  5. Angry Noodl says:

    Wow, great letter. There aren’t any glaring grammatical errors, and there are no logical inconsistencies either. The only problem I have wiith this is one that involves political correctness. Instead of using ‘God’ as a replacement for a theology, you should use ‘gods’, or ‘a theology’.

  6. Mr Cooper (all hail FSM) says:

    yes there are more pirates but less of them have cutlasses so therfore they are the wrong type of pirates

  7. Conp says:

    My god, an email that is not just incoherent words telling us to convert?!? This is by far my favorite. :)

  8. BigBoneDP from OZ says:


    SO……….. MANY………… WORDS……………


1 4 5 6 7 8 14

Leave a Reply