1153554 Views
796 Comments

What exactly do you think you are going to prove?

Published July 22nd, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

What exactly do you think you are going to prove? it’s just disrespectful to other human beings faiths and beliefs, and im sure u of all people should know u can’t put any sense into say a devout christian. Honestly, what your doing is the equivalant of making a rude, sarcastic joke to a child that doesn’t understand humor. u cant tell a christian thats been raised from birth to believe that there’s a magic man in the clouds that he’s wrong. you’ll just get what uve been getting, hate mail, and death threats. God is the equivalant of santa exept the child is never told he isn’t real until it’s to late. and u think your doing a good thing by making up this pastafarian crap to prove how absurd the idea of god is. what i don’t think u understand is that u cant argue with idiots about this stuff as most christians are dont know a thing about science.(I apoligize to all respectable christian scientists). as an athiest, im disgusted what youre doing. like making fun of christians being killed by somali’s, and u quoting, "apparently they thought there god could give them safe passage"(yes ive read ur website). really, did it ever, or does it ever occur to you that these people are actually human being’s with family’s and feeling’s, and just because they think the world was created  differantly than u, u have to mock them… that’s kind of a dick move. your being no better than they are(religious people) by making fun of and disrespecting other people just ’cause they think differantly than u. oh wait u are religous, u worship a flying spaggetti monster. which means i have the right to ridicule u on how stupid your dumbfuck religion is(oh may the great pasta diety forgive me for my sin) and dont deny that u worship the all mighty pasta king, because your the leader of the church. with the true words of your religion written on a piece of paper. it’s ironic that u, by trying to prove how bad religion is. go about it by u yourself inbodying everything that is wrong with human beliefs. u are everything that is wrong with athiesm. u go around acting all superior and pompus, like u know better than everyone else and tell them why there wrong mockingly. the world would be a better place if u took all your "followers" (butt pirates) got on a pirate ship and ate spaggetti until you all died of overeating.have u ever heard the term live and let live? and i love it how  u post all the hate mail u get on a your page to be ridiculed by your cronies( who by the way need to get of the internet and do something productive)yes we all the the bible huggars are gonna say dumb stuff because they’re uneducated. but that doesn’t mean u have to be immature and make fun of there faults so just lay off. even though this message sounds hostile just know i agree with what your’e trying to do (i think) educating people, i just wholly disagree with how u are going about it.

-David

A short response from Bobby:

It’s not our intention to mock or offend anyone. But I realize people sometimes feel mocked  or offended.

It might be fair to say that we’re disrespectful.  I would agree that most Pastafarians don’t respect the notion that religion should sit on a pedestal.  We don’t think that because an action is explained in the context of religion it is exempt from the scrutiny it otherwise would have been subjected to.  Religion is not a free pass for crazy ideas and crazy actions. 

I would agree that it’s not our place to pass judgment on those who see the world through a lens of religion.  But neither is it our place to ignore when personal belief becomes public action.  We can accept that some choose to teach their kids the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs are a myth.  But if they push for those ideas to be taught in our schools, it’s no longer a question of respecting personal belief.

The idea that rational minded people must be anti-religion is a wrong one, I think.   If we must draw a line to divide ourselves, I’d prefer the line be positioned between reasonable and unreasonable people, rather than religious and non-religious people.  

It’s one thing to see the world through a lens, and another thing to act as if it’s the only lens that can exist.

I believe there is no group more tolerant of other religious and nonreligious groups than Pastafarians, without question.  The death of the Christian sailors by pirates was a sad thing for everyone who heard of it, I’m sure.  My hope is that it doesn’t happen again.  The hard question is:  will criticizing the decision to venture into dangerous areas on the basis of faith help avoid a similar situation in the future?  I don’t know the answer.  But I wonder how many of their friends and family wish they had shaken them and said this is a bad idea, don’t do this.  This is one of the hard questions – this line between respect and concern. 



796 Responses to “What exactly do you think you are going to prove?”

  1. Sure Bob Sure says:

    “It’s not our intention to mock or offend anyone.”

    Whoa there, pasta dude. You say that like mocking and offending is a bad thing.

    • Nate says:

      *Dies of Asphyxiation from Laughing*

  2. Fred says:

    This monster sucks

    • Keith says:

      Only when using a straw.

  3. mortgage rates says:

    Here is my web page: mortgage rates

  4. Godgirl133 says:

    I find this very offensive and rude! There is a God out threre who loves you so much that he sent his only son to die for you! I know this because I have faith, and faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something. I know that God and Jesus are real. One day all will bow to him. I’ll be praying for everyone on this site. I hope you learn the true meaning of God and Jesus someday.

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      Loves me so much that I’ll burn for eternity if I disbelieve? I’ll take our deity thanks.

      Read the “about” tab. I find it offensive that you reject the noodly embrace of our sauced lord. Almost as offensive as I find the hypocrisy of you expecting us to kowtow to your faith while you deny everyone else’s.

      Yarrgh.

    • SillyKiwiMan says:

      And if your Jeebus is your god manifest in physical form, and if indeed your god is omniscient, then it’s no sacrifice to send part of yourself to do what you already know is going to happen, particularly if you know you’ll be fine after all is done.

      Faith isn’t knowledge. Far more akin to anti-knowledge. Keep digging your heels in despite the utter lack of evidence. That’s always a good way to win. If all else, throw a tantrum and hold your breath until you pass out.

      Don’t bother praying for me, or anyone else. If prayer worked then there would be fewer religious amputees.

    • Keith says:

      Ambrose Bierce defined faith as
      “n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.” (Devil’s Dictionary)

      Don’t you think you are being offensive by insisting that our lives are so flawed that a complete stranger mumbling incantations to someone sitting on a cloud is going to fix everything?

    • Pete Byrdie says:

      You’re certainly welcome to be offended, if that’s your choice. As for being rude; I always show respect when I’m in a Christian church. It’s my choice to be there, after all. This is our church, and you’ve come here just to tell us we’re wrong and you have the audacity to pray for us as though we should be grateful. Our god is a forgiving pasta, and he’s not easily offended, so I won’t bother praying for Him to forgive you your pride and disrespect.

    • Atsap Revol says:

      So, Godgirl133, your definition of faith is “complete trust or confidence in someone or something.” Trust and confidence in Adolph Hitler led to a war that killed millions of innocents. Faith is the BLIND acceptance of trust and confidence that can lead to horrible consequences. Christian faith has led, for example, to the Crusades and to bitter conflict between Catholics and Protestants. A truly horrible example of faith-based killing is the burning or hanging of thousands of “witches” in Europe and later in America. You need to go back and read the Old Testament to find the God-given instructions for atrocities in the name of religion. And always keep in mind that the God you worship is the same fearful, killer described in the Old Testament, and that your Jesus was part of the Trinity from the first page of Genesis. The New Testament is somewhat sweeter and more humane, but God is still God.

      • Rev.Stu says:

        Hitler was Democratically elected.

    • TheFewTheProudTheMarinara says:

      So you believe that – like over a dozen saviors with an almost identical story before him – Jesus had to “die in order to save us”. From what, original sin? What is that? Oh, it’s the concept that God has a grudge against all humans for an event that never happened. Sin is an affront against God, and the only way this petulant Supreme Being would “forgive” us was if we would torture and kill his son/him/this son. Think for a moment, Godgirl, and tell us this makes any sense.

    • Kayleigh says:

      …because God loves us so much that if we don’t commit the entirety of our lives to worshipping him, he will condemn us to eternal suffering in the fiery pits of hell…I think you may be somewhat confused about what ‘LOVE’ is. Your God is nothing short of a controlling, egotistical dictator.

    • Rev.Stu says:

      Godgirl133 said, “There is a God out threre (sic*) who loves you so much that he sent his only son to die for you!” I didn’t ask him to do that, I don’t think it was a particularly good idea. You would likely agree that Jesus offers salvation that he said, “There is no way to the father except through me.” Salvation is sitting in the presence of the Divine for eternity, this same Divine that cannot be looked upon directly less the individual be utterly obliterated. Why on earth, for heaven’s sake would I want that? Obliterated by the light seems no different than not having a soul at all and “lights out” when I die. What difference whether it is dark or light if I am not there? God girl, we await your emergence as Godwoman. Keep in mind , Jesus, by all accounts, was born lived his life and died as a Jew. His Father indeed conceived him – thus condemning him to death. He also brought the flood, commanded his chosen people, led by Joshua, to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in Jericho, and he couldn’t find a single worthwhile person in either Sodom or Gomorrah. (Did they have adult living communities in that time and place? No, they didn’t – so it seems this God, Elohim Adonai ad nausea did not think children were people or he felt that infants could be evil. God the Father would likely be pro-choice.) Your God does not like people. I know I don’t like Him.
      Oddly I may actually have put more thought into your faith than you have, I may actually believe what you believe mere earnestly than you do and as a direct result – I want nothing to do with it.
      *Am I alone thinking that poor spelling and grammar make a writer look uneducated? Its one thing if in academic statements the verbiage get garbled while delineating complex concepts while seeking the most concise words. However Godgirl ignored her spell check – imagine that.

      • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

        I agree that bad spelling may, on the surface give the appearance of a lack of education, however it is not a given that this is so. A very good friend of mine is ridiculously well educated, he has at the last count, degrees in at least four vastly different subjects. He has the right to place more letters after his name than many might imagine exists including two BSc’s at least two MSc’s and a PhD (and the age of 66 he is currently working toward another) yet he has a very difficult time spelling even relatively easy words whereas I can write an entire piece with hardly any resource to spell check and I barely scraped through with a foundation degree. Anyone can use spell check and hide the fact that they can’t spell, however, what reveals my friend as an intelligent and well educated man is that he can put a sentence full of long words together that makes sense. He can then put a number of such sentences together and create a piece of work that is both consistent and intelligible. It’s a pity there aren’t more like him!

        May the Sauce be with you.

        The Reverend

        • Pete Byrdie says:

          I don’t think Pastafarianism should be reserved for those with any particular academic skill, or those who are well educated, or even the more intelligent. However, such an overwhelming number of our critics who see fit to voice their concerns on this site have atrocious language skills, it’s perhaps a little too easy a failing on which to dismiss them. I’d rather focus on their general lack of understanding about Pastafarianism, because that gives us the best opportunity to reiterate our purpose.

        • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

          @ Pete Byrdie. There was no intention on my part to suggest that Pastafarianism should be elitist and having re-read my post I don’t see how you may have interpreted it as such; it was merely a comment on people’s assumptions about others based on their spelling prowess. Being a minister of the religion of FSMism I am all too aware of the high degree of acceptance for others that prevails among Pastafarians, I was merely holding up a mirror (Possibly displaying in myself a a small failure in accepting stone throwing from glass house dwellers).

          May the Sauce be with you.

          The Reverend

        • Pete Byrdie says:

          @Rev Toni. Sorry, I hadn’t interpreted your post as elitist, but the opposite. I was essentially agreeing, but also pointing out that, if you look at many of our responses to hate-mail, a lot of them focus on the mailers poor English, which may cause those who are insecure about their English to feel excluded by Pastafarianism.

        • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

          Being a bit over sensitive I guess. However I thank you for your clarification and support your view.

          Mat the Sauce be with you.

          The Reverend

      • Rev.Stu says:

        Hey Guys – hey I posted this entry re: grammar before I had read other threads. There has been spirited exchange on this issue. Sometimes I wonder if some Pastafarians or our sympathizers pose as Christians with the moniker “You dumb-ass use spell-check” just to enhance the stereotype of Christians being superstitious and unenlightened and to provide the straw man…Were you two addressing me? Look for the Grater Banishing Ritual of the Ragu, I will submit a version to Bobby tomorrow.

    • svns says:

      Fuck

  5. Brandy says:

    I am offended that David can’t be bothered to write out the entire word you. Is it really that much trouble to type two more letters? Or is this an intentional form of disrespect, showing that the followers of the FSM are not worth the effort required to type two more letters? Or has this poor person been raised on texting and is unaware that you is a whole word and not just a letter?

    • Keith says:

      I imagine that David is just being lazy. Messages left on some internet sites are often rife with misspellings and the lack of punctuation. Bizarre and incomprehensible words and phrases crop up everywhere, seemingly invented by people who were too illiterate to use words already in existence.

      • Rev.Stu says:

        Do you mean like when Shakespeare introduced “bump” ? My point is that our reality/environment is changing and developing very quickly, we need to add words to our lexicon just to keep pace, maybe. Brandy, the use of “u” for you is leakage from texting, sure, I don’t know much about text-speak (?) but I will text,”c u soon” because I am old and have large hands. This is the internet not the world of well crafted correspondences involving wordsmiths. I am more concerned with the use of terms like “to far away” or “your jist stupid – of coarse you are!!!” – that line would not have bugged me more had it ended “u r ” .
        Seems some Christians are anti-semantics.

        • Keith says:

          I agree that new concepts need new words. My complaint was against the people who abuse or ignore what is already there and what has been standardised by universal acceptance (yes, I know arse is spelled ass in America and colour is spelled color). I cannot imagine that the bulk of posters who mangle the English language have good reason to do so, other than indolence or a desire to follow trends of ignorance.
          As for the claim that Shakespeare introduced or invented new words, this seems to be based on the premise that because they have not been found in writings prior to Shakespeare they did not exist. I prefer more concrete evidence. If, for example, a document proven to have been written by Christopher Marlowe had the passage “Shakspere came forth with a newe word today. Yt is bumpe. Gods sonties he is a veritabal manne of parts.” I would be more inclined to accept the claim.

  6. Pete Byrdie says:

    Fossegrimen said, “It is not better to lie to your own children than it is to lie to other peoples children. Children should not be raised on lies period. ”

    We can’t have governments legislating what truth should be taught. And, once a law is passed saying they can, they’ll be using it to teach whatever science supports their politics. It’ll be no different than Intelligent Design, but with a political rather than spiritual conclusion.

    Fossegrimen said, “If a parent believes in the lies, then I believe that parent is not competent to raise children, sorry.”

    Is this related to the notion that raising a child religiously is tantamount to child abuse? It’s nonsense! Almost everybody who has ever lived has been raised religiously, and most have lived ordinary lives. Some people have been taught a form of religion which is abusive, and some have found that form of religion themselves. Some have been raised in secular environments, and ended up in cults or following fundamentalist philosophies. Some have been taught evolution proves that we should be entirely self-serving. I know someone whose capitalist and conservative background has caused life-long damage, and it wasn’t even particularly extreme. Nuanced teaching to a mind looking for simple answers can lead to problems, but everyone is entitled to their own journey. But, perhaps we should give our governments the power to determine whether someone should raise their own children depending on whether they agree with sanctioned beliefs, and see how that works out.

    • Pete Byrdie says:

      I put this post in the wrong place. It was supposed to go a page back. Soz, folks!

  7. Swirly says:

    As a Christian Pastafarianist (yes those do really exist) I find the hate-mailer’s comments much more offensive than anything I have seen here. He assumes that any Christian is unintelligent and ignorant to the ways of reality and while he claims Pastafarianists should be ashamed for mocking them, that is actually what he himself is doing. While I do believe his intentions are pure it is somewhat hypocritical.

  8. Truth Hurts says:

    I respect everyone’s right to believe in or not to believe in whatever and whomever as long as they do not try to impose their belief on me.

Leave a Reply