1236850 Views
1,844 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



1,844 Responses to “I spent a while thinking (hate-mail)”

1 54 55 56 57 58 67
  1. Aaron says:

    Austin, I would like to make a comment about your attitude. I’m not arguing one way or another about the religious debate, simply your hasty generalizations. I find the FSM concept entertaining, but understand the circumstances under which it came into existence.

    This is where you were a total rude jerk, and where I decided all of your other valid points were meaningless:

    “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”

    You see, there are many people who are just like me. We find the concept entertaining but do not EVER act rude towards other people. You seem to think that everyone who enjoys the concept is a total jerk to other religions. This is absolutely not true, and your hasty generalization is simply rude. This is like saying “All people who eat fast food are FAT!” or “All people who go to confession murdered someone.” Just because a few rotten eggs felt the need to be rude on behalf of the FSM community does not give you the right to generalize and be rude back. In the future, you should give rude responses to specific posts, not the community as a whole.

    TLDR: You seem to think everyone in the FSM community is outwardly rude, but in fact you are the one who simply lacks decency.

    • Aaron says:

      P.S. The incident with the child wearing a pirate costume to school can be chalked up to “BAD PARENTING.”

      • test says:

        So all religious parents and parents with religious children are “BAD?” Let’s throw free expression out the window and never look where it falls.

        PS: sorry if you’re making a wrong, religiously conservative point on purpose, just to show how wrong it is (that’s the philosophy of Pastafarism I guess!) then pardon what I said above. It does sound like it with those capital letters and hasty generalization :)

        • Keith says:

          No, Aaron is not saying that all religious parents and parents with religious children are bad: at least, I can’t find anywhere in his post that says that. What he does say is that the parents who sent the pirate boy to school are bad at parenting. It is possible to be a wonderful person and still be a bad parent.

        • Aaron says:

          I’m saying that all beliefs aside, people ought to know what is acceptable and not in a public place like a school. Only on Halloween should any costume be appropriate. Any rational parent would not allow their child to wear full religious garb to a non-religious school, be it a burqa or pirate costume. (Key word: rational)

          Too many parents these days want to be “friends” with their children.

    • test says:

      Aaron, not many people know this, but if you check closely… arguments over who is being rude never ever end well. Never. Doesn’t happen.

      There is no chance that one side will admit to being rude and stop being rude, unless you two are friends giving a short & very friendly reminder, or if one of you pulls out a gun and threatens the other into admitting he is being too rude. Otherwise, don’t count on it and expect the “no, you’re the one being rude” text to bounce back and forth indefinitely. Again, not many people know this pattern, but it could be confirmed through careful observation.

      • Aaron says:

        Test, you are correct. Thankfully my aim was not for anyone to admit they were rude. My aim was to point out that ending a coherent post in a rude way seriously takes away from any valid points previously stated. Its like eating a fantastic 5 course meal only to find out the chocolate ice cream is actually feces. Despite 4 fantastic courses, that restaurant is now no longer a possibility.

  2. Tony says:

    Austin, you seem so intelligent, I can’t believe you’re a christian
    go figure

    • Stoney Mea says:

      Ha! Go figure is right

  3. Stoney Mea says:

    Geesh Austin,

    If your a “christian” you are certainly not acting like one. I thought your were supposed be a little more forgiving. Your statement didn’t change my mind.

    • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

      Stoney Mea, you’re confusing what they preach with what they do.

      Aaron stated “…intelligent discussion, and that seems to have never existed in your website…”
      Yes, I and many others here would LOVE to have an intelligent discussion, but what we get is almost always either some juvenile cursing or “my magic book – which obviously anyone who ever read would believe 100% – says this”.

      • Aaron says:

        Austin*

        The quote in my post was directly from the original “hate mail” written by Austin, to which we are all replying.

  4. Les says:

    Hi everyone,
    just want to say that everyone is not going to agree on everything. Is this not the point of F S M? To have to defend this site seems to diminish why this site is here in the first place. I want to live within my personal belief parameters and I want others to live within theirs. No need to explain ourselves, just live peacefully. All races have good and not so good as do all belief systems, it comes with the territory. I understand that when you believe in something that you must believe it is the right way and it follows that you would also believe that whatever does not fall within the parameters of your understanding must be the wrong way. Some people do get overly enthusiastic I know, however thats just some people. So, whats the point of arguing, seems to me a waste of time.

    • Keith says:

      I agree with what you say Les but humans are naturally argumentative animals, partly because they like to assert dominance over each other but also I strongly suspect because the Imp of the Perverse dwells in us all. As I intimated in one of my recent posts, Dr Samuel Johnson, supposedly one of the finest minds in the 18th Century, was always giving contrary replies in conversation. He claimed it was a mental exercise but I think it may have been because he was a bad tempered, flatulent git.

    • Evil Little Thing says:

      Since I am of the human race (vs elf or dwarf), I can make my decisions based upon facts, or upon the other option – “not facts”. Fortunately I am convinced that believing in something makes it fact and choosing not to believe a fact makes it false. If others refuse to believe as I do, then they threaten my belief system, subsequently transforming it back into “not facts”. This is why I argue and call people names when they disagree with me.

      Other “good” of being of the human race: physical strength, relatively high intelligence, and flexibility in alignment system.
      Some of the “not so good” of being of the human race: short life span, lousy eyesight, and relatively low dexterity.

    • Barkingspyder says:

      I thought of FSM was to demonstrate the inappropriateness of teaching non-science in a science class. The fact that the non-science is religiously derived makes it even worse, since in our country, there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. IOW you can’t use tax dollars to push any kind of religion.

      That it has evolved into what it is now is sorta fascinating and terrific. A place where people can freely discuss and explain why nonsense should be treated as such is very much needed and in fact we need ever more of it. To much crap gets spun as reality and without the tools to discern one from the other people are bound to be confused and make mistakes.

      Since humans have one main tool that gives them an advantage over other creatures, the power to reason, it is important that the proper tools be given. There is not enough philosophy taught in school, even just the basics of Aristotle would be great. Knowing things like the law of identity are extremely helpful. It is said that only 10% of Aristotle’s works remain, proving that a little reason goes a long way.

  5. Evil Little Thing says:

    Oh, and in response to Austin the Hate Mailer, you seem to be confused about religion.
    Atheism is not belief, but the lack of belief, definitively. According to Merriam-Webster, the word “atheism” is defined as, “a disbelief in the existence of a deity.”
    Another not-belief is agonism. An agonist is a ligand that stimulates a receptor (think molecular biology), and agonism is not a religion but the action of an agonist. For example, acetylcholine is an agonist for the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR). In your peripheral nervous system, the nAChR regulate skeletal muscle movements; in your central nervous system the nAChR are thought to help regulate mood and memory, and play a part in psychosis. So while agonism may indirectly lead to religious belief, it is not a religion.

  6. Les says:

    Hi everyone,
    thanks for the clarification Evil Little Thing, makes sense to me! Keith, thanks for the mental picture of Dr Samuel Johnson, cheered me right up!

  7. Thomas says:

    Dear Austin,

    You say you are a Christian, but you respect all other forms of belief. Still, you do not apply that to all beliefs. Pastafarianism is just as much a legitimate religion as any other. So, if you respect other beliefs, why not Pastafarianism?
    Because Pastafarianism is a joke? Why is this religion a joke, but Christianity isn’t?
    What determines what a legitimate religion is? Is Pastafarianism not a organization of people who worship the same deity and believe in the same theology?
    You could have a just as rational conversation with a Pastafarian as with an Atheist or a Jew or any other person of another belief, if you would be open to it.
    Also, to a Pastafarian, the last comment you made can hurt as much to him/her as it would when you would say that to a Hindu, or a Muslim, or any other believer.
    I think you should not discriminate religions on whether or not you consider them mockings or not.

    Sincerely,
    Thomas, The Netherlands

  8. Studio says:

    Thought scientology was the belief in science not atheism…

    • Atsap Revol says:

      Studio, if you are serious, you don’t have a clue about Scientology (a cult-religion) or science (a systematic study).

      • Constipated says:

        Scientology was created by L Ron Hubbard who has no credentials from any religious instution. He used to be a cartoonist. It was all created in his head. It not like the old traditional religions. Not like a big boogy man in the sky God, talking bushes, virgin births, God who is his own father, ghosts, spirts and demons crap. God’s who supposedly spoke before it ‘created’ a human person. L Ron Hubbard created his own rligious crap for the weak minded but he probably emblelished it with a few bit of crap from traditional religious crap piles.

    • Keith says:

      Scientology is a belief in fantasy stories.

      • Atsap Revol says:

        Aren’t all religions, Keith?

        • Keith says:

          I agree but there are various levels of absurdity in religion. I would have expected a more mature mythology from the pen of a 20th century Sci-Fi writer but I suppose you can’t expect much from a pulp hack.

        • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

          The question with Scientology is: was L. Ron Hubbard a scam artist, or insane? I suppose both are a possibility, but I lean towards believing the second.

        • Keith says:

          I think he was a scam artist. Usually when insane people run a cult they run it into the ground. Hubbard made a fortune and kept it.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          If you want insane, there’s Richard Shaver, a pulp science fiction contemporary of L. Ron Hubbard. Both published in “Amazing Stories.” Shaver sold his psychotic hallucinations for two cents a word. In contrast to conman Hubbard, that’s all Shaver ever made from his work.

        • Keith says:

          Shaver still achieved immortality. In publishing “I remember Lemuria”, he opened up a wonderful new world for conspiracy theorists.

1 54 55 56 57 58 67

Leave a Reply