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 7 8 9 10 11 14
  1. David Bailey says:


    I’d like to give you a bit of advice about English composition:

    1) Shorten your sentences to the point where you can confirm that their structure is sound. In any case, very long sentences are poor style, and tend to make the reader tire.

    2) Make a list of about four or five points that you wish to make, and make them as simply as possible – probably one per paragraph.

    3) Phrases like “principle of factual basis” mean damn all. When you find yourself using them, stop and think what you are trying to say (if anything!).

    4) Clarity wins over pomposity any day.


  2. ATSAP REVOL says:

    Dear Maroun,
    David Bailey (#65) suggested ways to improve your writing skill. His ideas are excellent.
    For Maroun and others needing to improve their writing, buy and read “The Elements of Style,” Fourth Edition, by William Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White. This little volume sells for $15.95 US. With the book and effort, you can begin to write intelligibly.
    ATSAP REVOL, The Pedantic Pastafarian

  3. M says:

    I will say one thing. While the authentisity of this religeon remains to be seen, I am willing to open myself to the fact that others may ave different religeon. If nothing else, It is well thought out. Also, Parden If I offend, It is a humorous twist on the rather somber ongoings of modern religeon. And if you think badly of this new idea, think of the 100 or so nuts that shall remain unnamed.

    • Alfredo Pasta without the Chicken says:

      So many spelling mistakes…

      • Seven says:

        It burns….the illiteracy..please…make it…stop….

  4. Bosn_C_Otter says:

    “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. ”

    And how does it do that? by introducing fairy tails and myths as facts to be followed and to pattern your life after? To be a instrument that wolves may feed on the sheep by taking their hard earned money for their private gain? The only redeeming quality religion has is it makes it easier to single out the foolish.

    • Insightful Ape says:

      Of course doomsday prophets like maroun never offer a single study in sociology, backed by numbers and statistical analysis, to prove their point. We are supposed to believe uber-religious nations, from Pakistan to El Salvador, would somehow be worse off if they weren’t so religious. It is a big lie, course. He is parroting a piece of grabage that has been recycled many times.
      The truth should hurt even more, though. Investigator Greg Paul shows the more afflicted a society is with social ills, the more likely it is to be intensely religious. Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands have not descended into “widespread apathy, post-modernism and rampant sensationalism. ” (Much to the chagrin of maroun and his ilk, I reckon).

      • Joseph says:

        Does investigator Greg Paul note anything about the direction of the association between social ills and intensity of religion? I’m going out and making an assumption here based on the tone of your post, but it seems like you might think that greater religious intensity causes social ills, where it might be the opposite. Perhaps greater social ills might necessitate religion to help people cope. Or, more likely, as most scientists are figuring out, there’s much more to the debate than just religion causing ills or vice versa. Don’t try to compare Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands to any other countries regardless of religious status, simply based on their societal success. That narrowminded thinking is exactly what perpetuates the religious debate.

        Maybe hostile, insecure personalities are drawn to religious extremes (both theistic and atheistic), and that could explain why religions have such a stigma. It could also explain your hateful words.

        • Insightful Ape says:

          1. Correlation does not mean causation.
          2. However, if you control blood pressure and cholesterol, you do end up with lower rates of stroke an heart disease, which is indicative of causation.
          3. Much of the work linking social ills and religiosity is based on the World Values Survey, published in 2004 book Sacred and Secular.
          4. Improving social ills leads to (some times abrupt) decreases in religiosity/church attendance. Ireland and Spain are two classic examples. In Ireland, 5 out of 6 seminaries that nation had just a few decades a go hve closed as result of falling church attendance. Spain went from a religious/military theocracy to legalizing gay marriage in a mere 30 years.
          5. Apart from longitudinal trends showing decreased religiosity, attitudes toward religion as broken down by age also point toward causation. Young people, who have grown in stable environments in post-industrialized societies are a lot less religious than the elderly in those societies. By contrast, the youth in agrarian societies are fully as religious as the elderly.
          6. Religions are stigmatized? Where did you get that? All polls indicate atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, less even than Muslims.
          7. Oh, I get it now. You pulled it out of your a$$.

        • QWERTY says:

          just give up Ape lmao

        • gordon_uk says:

          Joseph, never make assumptions it makes an ass out of you…. Just you!

          Please read this link http://www.secularism.org.uk/116203.html this has the full study.

        • Joseph says:

          Gordon: Did you even read that? The fourth paragraph of the introduction already states exactly my point, that religion is an after-effect of dysfunctional social and economic environment (the cause). The whole reason I commented on Ape’s post is that citing Greg Paul’s article about the correlation between religion and social ills is stupid, because it is better evidence that religion does NOT cause it but actually the other way around.

          And to both of you, that’s a cross-sectional study. You cannot imply causation from a cross-sectional study because it’s only at one timepoint. Not to mention, the only strong association he found is the negative association between “rejection of evolution” and “social improvement”, but the indicators for social improvement he uses in that “World Values Survey” are terribly biased because they’re based only on the long term trends of homicide rates and GDP. It’s farfetched to say that homicide and GDP rates are good direct proxies for social improvement in terms of religion because it’s already been noted that religion is more common in those who are socioeconomically afflicted. Also, the ecological nature of the study says nothing about communities within the countries involved because the units of analysis are whole countries. While the study may say something about nationwide and governmental trends, it’s wrong to generalize that to smaller communities which is what arguments like the Kansas Board of Education case are concerned with.

          If YOU had read the article and understood it, you’d understand that Greg Paul also believes there are more forces at work. He argues that the evidence is only enough to state that arguing for greater religion for the sake of better social and economic status is not supported, but not that religion is a cause of social and economic ill. If you’re so into this FSM movement which satirizes religion’s use of pseudo-science (which I wholeheartedly agree is a joke), be careful that you don’t misinterpret science yourself.

        • Insightful Ape says:

          Joe, you obviously didn’t realize the point of my comment about maroun, neither the one I posted in response to you.
          I never said religion causes social ills. By your own admission, that was just something you assumed. The point was maroun’s claim about important roles religion plays, implying the skybwould fall if people walk away from it. That is plain false. I am not the one misinterpreting the data, you are the one misinterpreting my comment.
          Unlike what maroun claims, the only function religion fulfills is a crutch: as soon as you fix the other problems, it fades away.
          And I am going to bring up examples like Holland, Sweden and France to support my position, whether you like it or not.

        • Gordon_UK says:


          I have a problem when people quite happily pull something apart when they have not bothered to read or research it.

          Now you have taken the time to read it now you can comment on.

        • QWERTY says:

          You are making an assumption that making an assumption makes an ass out of you. Your being a hypocrite. LMAO
          Round and round we go.

  5. lowongan kerja agustus 2010 says:

    Hi, I’m wondering if there is any kind of guide to make a good looking web like yours. Right now i’m searching for some free fast loading themes with a good design. 13:42

  6. Tuco says:

    Leaving aside Maroun’s specious arguments and convoluted prose, it is clear that he has completely missed the point, which is that the Biblical creation story has no place being included in public school science curricula because there is absolutely no testable, falsifiable evidence to support it. Moreover, as written, it violates a variety of natural and scientific laws, and contains multiple inconsistencies and contradictions. Not exactly a model of good science.
    Fundamentally, though, the Genesis creation stories (there are two) cannot be tested, measured, or otherwise empirically evaluated in any way and it is not amenable to any kind of experimental confirmation which makes them – by definition – not scientific.
    There are endless examples of the complete and utter absurdity inherent in religion, as many here have already astutely mentioned, but the key point is that the Biblical creation story and the FSM creation story both have exactly the same amount of scientific evidence to support them: None.
    This is precisely what makes Bobby’s satire so brilliant. In terms of the supporting scientific evidence, the FSM story is just as valid as the Genesis stories or any other supernatural creation myth. Because there is absolutely NO scientific evidence whatsoever to support the Genesis creation myth it has no business being taught in a science classroom, let alone a public school science classroom, and if the believers of a given myth want to insinuate their religious creation story into the science classroom, then they are obligated to give equal weight to any and all competing creation stories.
    Maroun is free to argue the virtues of religion, dissect the minutiae of the pirate/global warming correlation, and condemn Bobby’s satire as “dangerous” if he wants, but neither he nor anyone else is free to force others to accept their ridiculous creation myths as science.

    • Eric says:

      Just as an FYI:

      1) What scientific law does it break?
      2) IF God did make everything he did make the laws, which would be for us not him.


      “Fundamentally, though, the Genesis creation stories (there are two) cannot be tested, measured, or otherwise empirically evaluated in any way and it is not amenable to any kind of experimental confirmation which makes them – by definition – not scientific.”

      Can be said about the big bang theory (We really can never test it, just hypothesize).
      It also can be said of evolutionary THEORY …so my question is

      Why, on God’s green Earth do we teach it, if ID is not allowed for the same reasons.

      I am going to be honest, I am Christian, Non Denominational. God however, according to the Bible, gave man freedom of
      choice, and so I do not believe it should be taught in schools, people have to decide on their own.
      That being said, if you discount ID by those notions that you explained here, why do we teach the big bang and evolution?

      I know I know you can Google: “What do I tell creationists when they say evolution can’t be proven.”
      You know I already Googled it, so save your ctrl c ctrl v fingers, they still do not prove it no matter what they tell you to say.

      Science itself is what drives me to believe in a creator the more they speak.

      You just can not disprove one while letting the other theory slide simply because that is what you want to believe.

      • B. says:

        While one can’t completely disprove a lot of scientific theories, one can “falsify” them. That means that one tests A and B until one can, with some certainty, say that A = B.

        A scientific theory is something completely different then a religious theory. A scientific theory has been tested – and tested – and tested – and in the end, someone says “Ok, so lets go with this. But if someone finds something better, we’ll go with that”. That is the big advantage that science has over religion. Scientists constantly change their minds – when better evidence comes along.

        There is no evidence for a “maker”. The lack of evidence AGAINST it has nothing at all to do with it. With Bertrand Russell in mind – one can say that there is a teapot circling the earth and its so small one can’t see it with a telescope. Would you contest this? Probably. But you can’t disprove it.

        I’ll say it once again – a religious theory and a scientific theory is so different from each other its embarrassing every time someone tries that argument. As someone that is currently studying scientific method (tho in the social sciences) I should know.

        R’Amen, for God’s sake

        • Eric says:

          But when you look at reality, you can prove big bang and evolution as much as I can prove God. When it comes to Evolution and big bang (and I go with these since this is the central argument against creation) they simply have no other explanation.
          So that is where they got the “Lets go with this.”

          The Universe is expanding, and from that they deduced that it was smaller in the past, so small in fact that it was smaller than
          the size of the head of a pin. Not really much proof for me, in fact not really much testing. I can roll one marble one way, and another the other way and then have a computer model track them backwards till it says, ohh yeah it must have been one singularity at one point.

          I am not in a debate on who is write or wrong, my point is, these two subjects can only be as proven as God.

          On the other hand Creationists say the proof is in the perfection. If you actually sit and learn on the universe, and everything that had to happen just to get life started let alone keep and going long enough to evolve into us, that is a lot of random perfection

        • Eric says:

          So much so its on the magnitude of billions to one.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Dear Eric,

          Thank you for not debating who is WRITE or WRONG [sic]. You mentioned two subjects; were you referring to Orville and Wilbur WRIGHT? Of course I may not be WRITE about the WRIGHTS. I could be WRONG about the WRIGHTS.

          Yes, when it comes to literacy, the proof of perfection is in the spelling and grammar, you pluperfect dope.

          Now, I think I’ll just “sit and learn on the universe” while I contemplate the impossibility of humans assembling the host of ingredients in this nice cool beer I’m drinking. As Ben Franklin said: “Beer is proof that God loves us” or something like that.

        • B. says:

          You are assuming that everything is done. Everything is not done. We are constantly evolving and everything around us is constantly evolving. There is no such thing as “perfection” since evolution is never done.

          And evolution is not random, which is one of the first lesson of evolutionary biologists. It is far from random, it can be swift and merciless but never random.

          What you are saying, Eric, is that you with your marble can do a better job then thousands and thousands of scientists that has dedicated their life to the truth (and not dreams of a bearded man sitting on a cloud watching you when you shower). Its preposterous to think that ideas that were imagined, formed and created all in the heads of human beings should trump or even be equal to endless years of scientific research regarding our origin.

          The fact that you can understand evolution, doesn’t disprove it.

        • B. says:

          Can = Can’t ofc

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          Eric: You should “right” your own bible, the way you can distort and make facts up.

          Where did you come up with the billions to one? Firstly, everything is NOT perfect. Yes, there are about 6 constants which needed to be within a certain range for our type of existence to come about. But who’s to say how many trials there were, or what other realities could have come about?

          Now, there ARE facts supporting evolution (THOUSANDS of them, as a matter of fact) and some supporting the Big Bang (turn on your radio or TV to an off channel and listen to the static). There are NO facts supporting a Creator.

          Science class is the presentation of facts, and extrapolation from there. Religion does not belong there, unless you’re talking about archeology or the study of history, in which case the facts to date actually REFUTE all religious literature.

  7. Gareth says:

    I would like to mention that we are still in an ice age idiot as an ice age is defined as any period of time in which a plannet has ice caps

  8. Gareth says:

    It is blatently stupid saying the pope would agree as he is blinded by one religion as are his followers but also with riches power and if you are talking about moral values then the fact he condones chiled molestaion is definately an utter contradiction of the theory. I would also like to tell you that their IS a negative correlation between religiousness and IQ even if there are some exceptions as there would be. thirdly the majority of scientists were religious in the past as if they werent they were classed as either heritics and/or inferior when in fact as is obvious with the IQ statement as well as their blatent incapeability to understand logic, the idea that after death they will be dead and that some things are null or infinate. theists do not understand these concepts and therefore are inferior to atheists. As well as this if you observe THE ONLY motivation for animal behaviour it is due to chemical releases in the brain that cause oneself to feel satisfied, at rest, or pleasured. that is the only motivation including for charitable or “selfless” actions EVERY deed in other words is selfish

1 7 8 9 10 11 14

Leave a Reply