738 Responses to “Frequently Asked Questions”

1. 41 - September 30th, 2006 at - banghammas Says:
   
   

   fafnjdskalfdnasjkga

2. 42 - September 30th, 2006 at - banghammas Says:
   
   

   ^ the new language of the almighty noodle

3. 43 - September 30th, 2006 at - W P Gardner Says:
   
   

   Is it whole wheat spaghetti, or the usual “white” spaghetti? Or maybe the red or green kind you see sometimes? I am trying to worship at home and I don’t want to get the ritual wrong. It could be very dangerous.

4. 44 - October 1st, 2006 at - The Aussie Says:
   
   

   it doesnt really matter, as our noodley guide is a benevolent creature. however, if this is not enough for you, try the picture of the FSM up the top of the website for inspiration :p

5. 45 - October 1st, 2006 at - Jray Says:
   
   

   You make me really angry making fun of God like that.I know that the Christian story is false,but ya’ll anger me alot putting a Spehgetti Monster where God connected with man.How dare you do that.I ain’t religious nor do i understand the divine God at all.I just say that ya’ll are making a mockery of something no one can’t understand.Prayer is n’t necesary,nor is prayer,but this is one of the worst things to any relgioion or any person to do is make God look this way especially when no opne understands the being not even i do,but why put an image in front of something who we are not worthy call anything at all and we aren’t meant to pray,man tuaght us that which was good in some cases,but why get us worrying over stuff we don’t even understand.Men and women are here to live,have sex,enjoy life,fulfill their destinys and die or maybe not just depending on how healthy they are and can they live and not die.We all are given a choice in life to do right or messup it’s all up to us humans to research and not go ahead and sya this and that when we indeed don’t know God personally and say we did it’s wrong to say false stuff and not indeed know beings.I am not in any religion and never will be espeically this false religion claiming to be true come on.Ya’ll are a joke.Give me a break.Christianity isn’t real and saying this stuff will just get people mad why don’t ya’ll send the right message so people will understand what’s right from wrong instead of misleading many.

6. 46 - October 2nd, 2006 at - Pete Yellowbeard Says:
   
   

   Jray - y’all wanna git yersel back n’ git some skoolin, ‘fore ya start tryin’ ritin like ‘em smart folks.

   We be talkin’ like pirates, not Wild West frontier gibberish.

   Arrr.

   Pete Yellowbeard

7. 47 - October 2nd, 2006 at - The Aussie Says:
   
   

   wow… “Prayer is n’t necesary,nor is prayer…”
   couldnt agree more, nor could I agree more

8. 48 - October 2nd, 2006 at - Fred Waters Says:
   
   

   FSM was mentioned by Richard Dawkins (Ph.D.)when he was interview by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight Book Club (BBC, 22SEP06)about his book The God Delusion.

   Paxman: I was struck by one sentence in your book, in the middle of it, “God almost certainly does not exist”. You are leaving open the possibility that he does.

   Dawkins: Of course, any scientist will leave open that possibility. You can’t absolutely disprove the existance of anything. Just as we can’t disprove the existance of Bobby Henderson’s The Flying Speghetti Monster. We can’t be dogmatic and say for for certain God doesn’t exist, but it is just as unlikely as Thor with his hammer.

9. 49 - October 3rd, 2006 at - A skeptic Says:
   
   

   Christianity is bunk because it can produce no better evidence than Pastafarianism. This claim might seem to need to be substantiated by a comparison of the evidence presented in favour of each. However, it doesn’t.

10. 50 - October 3rd, 2006 at - A Christian Says:
    
    

    For my part, my Christian beliefs are almost entirely based on the eyewitness testimony of Paul the apostle. Why do I believe him? Well, for one thing - and it’s only one of my reasons - he seems sincere. And that’s something I can’t say about Pastafarians; they most certainly do not seem sincere. I know you won’t like that kind of evidence - eyewitness testimony I mean - because it demands a subjective judgment and is not easily amenable to scientific investigation. You can’t quantify sincerity. But we do make many important decisions based on this kind of evidence - whether to buy a certain product, who to vote for and who to trust. Members of a jury make life and death decisions based on such evidence. So it’s a kind of evidence we have to take seriously. Furthermore, the fact that Paul was killed because of the things he claimed to have seen seems to at least rule out the possibility that he was joking. So that’s some supporting evidence, again of a kind that Pastafarianism doesn’t have.

    So I really can’t identify with people who see faith and evidence as opposites. For me, faith is not about believing something in the absence of evidence. Rather, it’s the judgment you make about the evidence you do have. It’s the risk you take after you’ve considered that evidence.

11. 51 - October 3rd, 2006 at - Christian Says:
    
    

    For my part, my Christian beliefs are almost entirely based on the eyewitness testimony of Paul the apostle. Why do I believe him? Well, for one thing - and it’s only one of my reasons - he seems sincere. And that’s something I can’t say about Pastafarians; they most certainly do not seem sincere. I know you won’t like that kind of evidence - eyewitness testimony I mean - because it demands a subjective judgment and is not easily amenable to scientific investigation. You can’t quantify sincerity. But we do make many important decisions based on this kind of evidence - whether to buy a certain product, who to vote for and who to trust. Members of a jury make life and death decisions based on such evidence. So it’s a kind of evidence we have to take seriously. Furthermore, the fact that Paul was killed because of the things he claimed to have seen seems to at least rule out the possibility that he was joking. So that’s some supporting evidence, again of a kind that Pastafarianism doesn’t have.

    So I really can’t identify with people who see faith and evidence as opposites. For me, faith is not about believing something in the absence of evidence. Rather, it’s the judgment you make about the evidence you do have. It’s the risk you take after you’ve considered that evidence.

12. 52 - October 3rd, 2006 at - djjack Says:
    
    

    Christian, I am very sincere. I believe in an omnipotent, onmiscient pasta-dish Deity with all my heart. At least I can say this: I believe it more than I ever have believed the creation myth of the Christians. Really. You can say I’m whacked-out if you must, but please don’t doubt my sincerity. I have finally found a place where others think as I do, as I have for all my life, and I’m happy to place my faith in His Noodliness.
    RAmen.

13. 53 - October 3rd, 2006 at - jascruiser Says:
    
    

    OK, do you think that if I convert that my union will accept the fact that it is a religon that does not believe in Union dues? If so, I’m there, because unless I can find a religon that doesn’t allow union dues to be taken out of my check then I have to keep paying them no matter how rotten the representation is. This could work….

14. 54 - October 3rd, 2006 at - The Aussie Says:
    
    

    hey, im wondering… why do they make you swear, on the bible, to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc, on the bible?
    what if you are atheist? isnt that just an incentive to lie? and if you believe in our noodely creator?
    .
    im not promoting perjury, but it makes you think…

15. 55 - October 3rd, 2006 at - Louis Says:
    
    

    I have been thinking that your religion matches my belief system better than other religions I have tun into, but still have some lingering questions.
    1. What is the official church position on sauce? Do you allow pesto?
    2. How do you feel about whole wheat pasta, and is there a rice noodle sect in South East Asia.

16. 56 - October 3rd, 2006 at - nzlemming Says:
    
    

    @A Christian : Paul was not an apostle, at least he was not one of the 12 who, according to the Bible, walked with Jesus of Nazareth. He came on the scene after the crucifixion as Saul of Tarsus (Acts 7:58), a persecutor of the apostles, and was converted on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3). Therefore, he was not an “eyewitness”. The New Testament does not record his death, though Christian _tradition_ holds that he was beheaded by Nero. There is no historical evidence for this, however, neither is there evidence that he died for his beliefs. He argued with the other apostles (notably Peter - the “Incident at Antioch”) and boasted to the Galatians that he had received no teaching from them but that his ‘knowledge’ came directly from God. Jim Jones said much the same, and I’m sure Adolf Hitler was also sincere. READ your bible, if you believe in it - don’t just parrot your pastor.

    @ The Aussie : Under New Zealand law (I can’t speak for other jurisdictions), you can swear an oath or make an affirmation without religious props when called upon. It’s the law that compels the truth, not the oath - that’s just a signal that you accept that your actions and words will be measured by a stronger means than in everyday life.

    May you all be touched by His Noodly Appendage. Arrrrrrr!!

17. 57 - October 3rd, 2006 at - Christian Says:
    
    

    Dear djjack,

    Thanks for your comment. I won’t try to argue that you’re not sincere and Paul was, because that’s a subjective judgment I’ve made based on unquantifiable things like tone and motive. It’s a rational judgment all the same, of a kind that we’ve all made at one time or another.

    There’s a risk involved in believing eyewitness testimony, I acknowledge that. But we have to make these kind of judgments - as consumers, as voters, as jurors and in religion.

18. 58 - October 3rd, 2006 at - viva carlita Says:
    
    

    cannibilly sent me here, and i think he is on crack!

19. 59 - October 3rd, 2006 at - Christian Says:
    
    

    Dear nzlemming,

    Thanks also for your comments. Paul called himself ‘the least of the apostles’ in 1 Cor 15:9, although he adds that he doesn’t deserve to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church. I don’t want to quarrel about this point, as I’m only referring to him as an apostle so that you know which Paul I mean. I’ll call him Paul of Tarsus, or just Paul, if you prefer.

    I also acknowledge that I can’t prove Paul was beheaded by Nero. There’s subjective judgment involved there too. I would count church tradition as historical evidence. There’s also plenty of non-Christian evidence that Nero did persecute and kill Christians, so it’s not implausible that Paul was one of them.

20. 60 - October 3rd, 2006 at - nzlemming Says:
    
    

    @ Christian
    The significant thing is that we only have Paul’s word for all of this. As he wasn’t present during the life of Jesus (according to the Gospels, and I think they would have mentioned it, if he was even the ‘least of the apostles’), that is not “eyewitness testimony” i.e. he NEVER spoke to Jesus the man during his lifetime. It may well be ‘faith-based testimony’, but that just means you believe it because you want to believe it, not because it is worthy of belief.

    You wouldn’t take a salesman’s word for the attributes of a car you want to buy, yet you would hand over your soul because someone sounded sincere?

    As to the plausibility argument - I fear logic will have no impact on you so I’ll leave you to your beliefs.

    Good luck to you and may His Noodly Appendages wave over you

Leave a Reply