1211755 Views
1,835 Comments

I spent a while thinking (hate-mail)

Published June 14th, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

I spent a while thinking of a good reply to this, without sounding like some sort of inbred hick or perhaps maybe to get your attention. However, I realize that there pretty much is no way for that to happen, if you put this in your hate-mail section, I’ll probably be mocked just as much as the next guy, who put the stupid comment about how you could never buy a pirate ship. I’m OK with that, I just wish people will actually think about what I have to say rather then ignorantly mocking what I believe personally. Whatever may happen, I don’t really mind, except that I cannot bring myself to be silent on this issue.

I am a Christian, whatever you may think about me, or absurd assumptions you may have about what I look like, think like, or speak like, realize this, I think all beliefs should be treated with equality. Atheism, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Agonist, Voodoo, whatever, I don’t care, if you believe that you are correct, then you have every right in the world to believe that with all your heart, and nobody should force you to believe what they believe. Now I also believe in open criticism of any of these religions, meaning your Pastafarian view that openly mocks religion. However, it is also my right to criticize the criticism, meaning though while I believe it is your right to mock, harass, and generally make religious persons miserable, I don’t believe it is morally right.

Atheism is a belief just as much as Christianity. Say whatever you want about facts and how religion is stupid and all those who practice it are all idiots, but it still comes down to the fundamental truth that you must believe this to be more true over the other option. I am again, completely fine with that, and that is why I love America so much, because we CAN believe differently then one another, and still live peacefully (to a degree) together. However, mocking is not the right way to go about arguing your belief.
By the way, here is the definition of mocking:

1. Tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.

2. Make (something) seem laughably unreal or impossible.

To laugh at someone else’s belief that they dedicate their lives to is not funny or humorous, but I believe is rather childish and immature. This is the main reason why I would much rather sit down calmly with an atheist and have a rational discussion about each other’s beliefs, instead of smacking them in the face with a bible, and shouting how they are going to hell for not believing the undeniable truth that is the bible, or worse, calling their belief idiotic and getting my group of friends together and laughing and pointing in his face.

Of course there are people that do this, hence, you, and there will always be people like you. My job is try to convince you to be rational and discuss each others view points.

I could never put myself in your mindset and read this the same way through your eyes. To you, I just look like another idiot who took this seriously and decided to write a concerned letter and waste his time trying to teach you to be respectful, but the truth is, writing this helps me put my thoughts in order anyways.

If you do have one ounce of thought for my beliefs, at least view this letter with respect, and try to think about what I am thinking when I read this:

http://www.globalone.tv/forum/topics/student-punished-for-spaghetti?groupUrl=flyingspaghettimonster

What I am thinking is that the joke has gone to far. Of course this letter asks for intelligent discussion, and that seems to have never existed in your website, so before I go, let my put it in your language.

Fuck you, and lay off religion asshole.

Sincerely,
Austin



1,835 Responses to “I spent a while thinking (hate-mail)”

  1. Drained and Washed Clean says:

    I just wish people will actually think about what I have to say rather then ignorantly mocking what I believe personally. Whatever may happen, I don’t really mind, except that I cannot bring myself to be silent on this issue.
    ** I resent the ignorantly mocking part. #1 – mirrors do not mock, they just reflect the truth. #2 – I am not ignorant in this subject, and neither are the others on this website. We know the history and issues behind your religion, and I would go out on a limb and assume we know more than you.
    … I think all beliefs should be treated with equality.
    ** Obviously not since you are here.
    and nobody should force you to believe what they believe.
    ** Good
    Now I also believe in open criticism of any of these religions, meaning your Pastafarian view that openly mocks religion.
    ** Again, obviously you don’t or you wouldn’t be here, and again, the Pastafarian view shows just as much proof as your religion and has the purpose of following the Contitution.
    However, it is also my right to criticize the criticism, meaning though while I believe it is your right to mock, harass, and generally make religious persons miserable, I don’t believe it is morally right.
    ** Really? We are making people miserable? How about the number of people who have been tortured and killed in the name of religion? Pretty sure those people were miserable. How about the civilizations that have been destroyed in the name of god? I think those people were miserable as well. Families who will not speak to relatives because they are atheists or another religion make people miserable.
    Atheism is a belief just as much as Christianity.
    ** No, the a in atheism specifically denotes a lack of belief.
    … but it still comes down to the fundamental truth that you must believe this to be more true over the other option. I am again, completely fine with that,
    ** There is no belief involved. Scientifically there is no evidence. And I think what you believe is a bunch of mythology, so I don’t consider it an option.
    and that is why I love America so much, because we CAN believe differently then one another, and still live peacefully (to a degree) together.
    ** Right, until you get up in our business.
    However, mocking is not the right way to go about arguing your belief.
    Thomas Jefferson: “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
    By the way, here is the definition of mocking:
    ** Thanks for providing citation. But I should let you know that most religions do a good job all by themselves at making the belief seem laughably unreal or impossible. Talking snakes, spontaneously combustive bushes, flying light and dark creatures, the world’s rotation stopping for 24 hours, people levitating into outer space… and that is just from Christianity.

    To laugh at someone else’s belief that they dedicate their lives to is not funny or humorous, but I believe is rather childish and immature.
    ** Going back to Thomas Jefferson.
    This is the main reason why I would much rather sit down calmly with an atheist and have a rational discussion about each other’s beliefs,
    ** If that is the case, would you be open mined to the possibility that your beliefs may not be the truth?
    instead of smacking them in the face with a bible, and shouting how they are going to hell for not believing the undeniable truth that is the bible,
    ** Cause from that statement, it doesn’t sound like you would be open to any other possibilities.
    Of course there are people that do this, hence, you, and there will always be people like you.
    ** You haven’t read much on this site have you?
    My job is try to convince you to be rational and discuss each others view points.
    ** You haven’t noticed that those who come on here with open minds we have open conversations with. And unfortunately telling the truth and stating facts is not looked upon as rational.
    I could never put myself in your mindset and read this the same way through your eyes. To you, I just look like another idiot who took this seriously and decided to write a concerned letter and waste his time trying to teach you to be respectful, but the truth is, writing this helps me put my thoughts in order anyways.

    If you do have one ounce of thought for my beliefs, at least view this letter with respect, and try to think about what I am thinking when I read this:
    ** I have no idea what you are thinking because said article does not explain what we are here for. If you are so for everyone practicing their own religion, then I am confused as to your point for showing us this article. It contradicts everything you have said.
    What I am thinking is that the joke has gone to far.
    ** Not yet because school boards are still trying to teach creationism dressed up as science and called intelligent design.
    Of course this letter asks for intelligent discussion,
    ** If your letter was asking for intelligent discussion then you would have presented facts and evidence in your claims. First, if you could offer proof of how people have been traumatized by our website. Second, any proof that you can offer for your claims of your bible being the only truth. Third, you would have researched what we are about, read some of the posts, and realized that we don’t attack first, we defend our house. If you come here and are disrespectful then that is how you will be treated.
    and that seems to have never existed in your website, so before I go, let my put it in your language.
    ** So, again proving that you haven’t done any research or read anything on our website, and that you are going to come into our house…
    Fuck you, and lay off religion asshole.
    ** And curse at us. Thank you for once again showing us how real Christians act and how intolerant they are of anything that does not match up to what they believe (no matter how much they blow smoke and say they are tolerant)
    Sincerely,
    Austin
    ** The intolerant who doesn’t know what intelligent conversation entails.

  2. Lynda says:

    Well like all the other commenters to this letter I was disappointed in the end.. There is something Austin is missing; we only seem to fight back. Looking at some of the other threads on this site most are rational discussions or comments; it is only the hate-mail section that gets a wee bit crazy at times. Why is this?? Well possibly because we can only fight with the tools that are effective. Are you going to open a letter with a chain saw?. I would hope not. Discussing things rationally with irrational people may sometimes work and if you look at the responses to the other hate letters you will see that it has been attempted. However these efforts are dashed by the irrationals that feel the need to troll the page. So yes communication does break down to “I know you are but what am I” banter. To be honest it is fun to poke the trolls and watch them squirm. So with that said this cannot be taken too far by rational people, the people who believe that this is in fact a real religion are another matter. We are just trying to keep the unscientific and irrational believe in magical beings out of the classroom that is suppose to exemplify proof and rational thought. Another point is that this is our website so if you don’t like what we do here then you fuck off. The people who troll us are the scum of religion and our responses are directed to them. I’m sure we don’t go to christian websites and bash the views on it nor write letters on how we think its unfair that they pick on Atheism (which some do).. so allow us the freedom to vent at least on our own forum to those who deserve it.

    • Nicole (Fly) says:

      Hun, I think you got a little pissed off, there in the end.
      Also as i am currently on the phone with you venting about ‘commas’, of all things,(yes, commas), i realised that venting is a very nessasary part of staying on this side of sanity.
      Whether it is about the ridiculous, like my commas, your ‘ you talk to the earth’ thing; or the important things, Like what your boss said, or the Ass that cut you off, or other things. Cuz ‘Going Postal’, is what happens when you don’t vent, even about the little things. I also think that someone who feels the need to try and change how people think, have serious issues, and that the same person could be having things going on in their lives and be lashing out, as a need to vent out frustrations, out on those they don’t know, and who seem ridiculous.
      And also My Skeptical Athiest, I haapen to know you better that others wh will read your comment and know that, this is a common Peeve you have.
      But to Austin, i sincerely hope that you are having a good week, that you are At a good place in your Work and home, and especially your Private Life.
      And so you dont misunderstand me, I actually do wish you Happiness, as i wish Every other reader and commenter. Because thats just how I work.
      Respect,
      Nicole ‘Fly’

      • Nicole (Fly) says:

        An once again, Apologies for my Horrendous spelling, believe it or not, i am an avid reader, and am capable of guessing the shape of a word, without my glasses on… but can i spell… not on his Noodilyness… ::Sigh::

      • Lynda says:

        FYI Fly I just want to try to help my closest and dearest of friends to see the truth (Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah witnesses sound familiar??). Its not as though I am always preachy about your mother earth thing just when you bring it up (sorry I know I should stop lol). I would have to say my biggest “peeve” would be misinformation and the propagation of it. P.S love the “Going Postal” reference and wonder if it has anything to do with the Terry Pratchett (not looking up the spelling of the last name) book. Also my show of anger is only an echo of our dear friend Austin; though it is something that I actually feel in reference to his “stop picking on my faith” b.s.

        • Nicole (Fly) says:

          LOL… Love ya too, S.A

  3. Timegirl4468 says:

    I’ll keep this one short.

    We were completely with you, well, most of us. We agree. But you spoiled it by saying: “Fuck you, and lay off religion asshole.” You ruined your entire argument at the end. That’s why at the end of this I’m not calling you any names.

    Bye Austin of the Ruined Argument,

    Timgirl ~ “RAmen, for we are all made of awesome.”

    • Metal Head says:

      “We were completely with you, well, most of us. We agree.”

      My disposition is in contrast with that statement. I pay Austin’s post little credit, even without the profane attack on us.

      I’m not try to stir any chit here, but please take it easy on the presumptuous blanket statements. I don’t think that such assertions (or those to the contrary) could be made in confidence, without actually taking a poll.

  4. Atsap Revol says:

    Well, Austin, you came to our site to tell us to be more tolerant. But you only succeeded in showing us how intolerant you are. We have no moral lapse in mocking the religious bigots that come here with their glad tidings of hell and damnation.

    Just as I finished that paragraph, my doorbell rang. It was a couple of religious folks who intended to convert me to their faith if possible. I was polite, but brief…I would have turned nasty if they had persisted. I am so damned tired of the “I’m right and you’re wrong” message that many religious nuts convey. Why should I be tolerant on this website?

    Austin, you tried to sound intellectual and caring, but you revealed yourself to be just another critic of anyone that doesn’t agree with your point of view. The least intelligent “discussions” on this website have originated from Christian hatemailers. See, for example, any of the many recent posts on various threads made by “Big Guy.”

    I will offer a civil closing in contrast to the closing you used:
    Ramen
    Atsap Revol

    • Rev Toni Rigatoni says:

      Nice to hear from you again Atsap, I thought you had given up on ‘em.

      The Reverend

      • Atsap Revol says:

        Hi Rev Toni,

        Thanks for the welcome back. I never give up. I’ve been reading all of your posts. You continue to be a bright beacon of reason in the dark domain of dogma.

        Ramen
        Atsap

  5. Maju says:

    What happened to the right to mock religion enshrined in the Constitution of the USSR. Our forefathers fought a bloody revolution and WWII for that sacred right of all us: get the Jehovah witnesses in the house, lock the door, hide the key and strike back for a whole weekend of tea, cookies and unveiling of the horrible nature of Yaveh, the god of hatred, machismo and gratuitous genocide.

    What happened to the lawsuit against the Catholic Church for scam? After all if they are selling something that is false (god, afterlife, etc.) they are breaking the law and most importantly the good faith which is the only principle of convivence.

    So what’s up with those Chirstians (and other gullible/liars) who want us to respect their lies but do not respect the rest and keep lying. Stop lying and we will stop mocking you because our mocking is nothing but showing how false and unreal all that junk is.

    This is my response to the Christian of the hate mail. May he find illumination in a dish of carbonara.

  6. n kalanaga says:

    Actually, atheism is based on belief and faith, as is science.

    Science is based on faith that the universe follows universal laws, that those laws can be learned through research, and that, if all of the laws are known, nothing will occur that contradicts those laws. So far, we don’t know all of the laws, so can’t say what is and isn’t possible. The belief seems reasonable because, even when contradictions are found, they are in new or unusual circumstances, and the new laws learned from them give the same results as the old ones under the previous circumstances. As an example, Relativity replaced Newton’s laws, but Newton’s still work fine in everyday circumstances. If there is a deity, it seems to obey the laws of physics, at least while we’re looking, and thus is not needed for science to work. Science is also self-correcting. If that deity ever decided to do something obvious, like rearranging the stars to spell its name, science would accept its existence.

    Atheism is based on the belief that there is no deity. The difference with science is that the appearance of such a deity would make atheism false, where science could adapt. Atheism’s biggest difference with “traditional” religions is that, while they cannot be proven false, except by the direct intervention of somebody else’s deity, atheism cannot be proven TRUE. If there is no deity, but the definition of “deity” allows for undetectable entities outside the observable universe, and capable of doing anything they wish, it’s impossible to prove that such a being doesn’t exist even if it REALLY DOESN’T. The religious can always say “you didn’t look in the right place” or “you looked at the wrong time” or “you used the wrong wavelength”.

    Personally, I find atheism simpler, intellectually, as there doesn’t appear to be any rational reason for a deity. The universe runs just fine without one, and if there is one, it seems to be inactive. But to say “there is no deity” is an act of faith.

    • Shano says:

      er… just to point one thing out there matey…. ACTUALLY atheism is NOT a belief, it is a lack of belief in a god or gods….
      non stamp collector here.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      @ n kalanaga:
      I thought your argument was cleanly stated and helpful to me. As it happens, I got roundly and deservedly flogged (100 lashes with a NOODLE) a while ago for posting something to the effect that atheism was another form of religion. In the abstract, it isn’t: atheists don’t have to argue about the name, origin, or wishes of a nonexistent deity/principle/First Cause/etc., while theists are stuck with the whole 9 yards: Buddha vs. Allah, splashing vs. dunking, literal truth vs. allegory, fag-hating Yahwehs vs. more compassionate types, etc. In the concrete, I think things are a little squishier, since the attitude, style, manner, and chemistry of proponents come into play. Most of us have run into obnoxious militant atheists (assuredly far fewer than obnoxious militant Christians – or Muslims, forgive me). One side issue is that OMC’s classify anyone who disagrees with their lunatic one true faith as atheists. The schizophrenic glory of Pastafarianism is that we can revere the Noodly One as well as the undoubted sanity of the scientific empiricism that you sketched so well.

    • Insightful Ape says:

      No idiot. Science is accepted because it WORKS. Like, when it allow you to troll the web.

    • Drained and Washed Clean says:

      The definition of faith:
      ** How this has nothing to do with us
      1. a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
      ** Not related to the faith you are speaking of (but we have no hierarchy or leadership system)
      b (1) : fidelity to one’s promises
      ** Not related to the faith you are speaking of (but we don’t make promises)
      (2) : sincerity of intentions
      ** Not related to the faith you are speaking of (but we don’t have intentions to be sincere about)
      2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God
      ** We definitely don’t have this.
      (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
      ** None of this. We have no doctrine.
      b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
      ** Science is proven, that is why it is science. Belief is not necessary.
      (2) : complete trust
      ** If scientists always had complete trust in their findings then retesting wouldn’t be required to make sure the results are repeatable.
      3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
      ** Nope. There is nothing to “believe”. Science is not a set of beliefs. It is fact because the results have been repeated multiple times to be confirmed.

      Definition of fact:
      the quality of being actual : actuality
      a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence
      c : a piece of information presented as having objective reality

      Definition of belief:
      : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
      2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
      3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

      The difference between fact and belief is simple. Actuality versus a state of mind or conviction. So no. We don’t have faith, we don’t have belief. So says the dictionary. Ramen.

      • Drained and Washed Clean says:

        Citation: Merriam Webster

    • Googol says:

      “Actually, atheism is based on belief and faith, as is science.”

      No they aren’t, except in the most trivial sense of “belief”.

      Science is based on observation, hypothesis and evidence. It is not based on “faith that the universe follows universal laws”. It is based on acceptance that observations that are in contradiction to current understanding require explanation. If we observe that the speed of light is different near the edge of the observable universe, we are forced to review our understanding of relativity. If quantum theory cannot deal properly with gravity, we know we are missing a trick. Science seeks to develop models that allow us to make reliable predictions of outcomes. The better and more reliable those predictions are, the more likely we are to claim we have a theory that explains the phenomenon well. Science makes no claim for truth. Science is in no sense (except as I said, the most trivial) a system of belief.

      Atheism is also based on observation and evidence. In science, error terms are used to provide an estimate of how likely a particular observation or set of observations is or are to belong to a population of other observations. Even if we still have no evidence of the mass of the Higgs boson, none of the hundreds of millions of observations of the natural world contradicts our understanding that supernatural forces simply do not exist. The weight of evidence in favour of supernatural beings is negligible (sorry, Your Wrigglyness). This is not an issue of belief or non belief – it’s an observation. The probability that god exists is so small that we may comfortably neglect it. End of story. It is simply wrong to claim that “to say “there is no deity” is an act of faith”.

      “If that deity ever decided to do something obvious, like rearranging the stars to spell its name, science would accept its existence.”

      Almost certainly, somewhere it the universe, there is a planet with intelligent life that can inspect the arrangement of stars in its vicinity – and where that arrangement, by happenstance, spells out the name of god, or Mickey Mouse, or Her Al Denteness. That would seriously mess with their heads, if they have heads.

      May the arrabiata be piquant and the beer be cold

  7. LSM says:

    “I spent a while thinking..”

    Clearly not enough.

    • Midnight Rider says:

      lol

  8. stylusmobilus says:

    ‘Fuck you, and lay off religion’

    Nah, screw you and piss off Austin.

Leave a Reply