I dont want this to sound rude

Published November 9th, 2006 by Bobby Henderson

I don’t want this to sound rude. With email it is easy to misinterpret what and how things are said. I just want the facts. How do Pastafarians justify a object (such as spaghetti) which is made by man, having the power to create man. It seems like whatever started the world would have to be around before the world began. And spaghetti wasn’t made till sometime after they figured out how to brown ground beef and put tomato sauce over the beef and noodles. Is there some explanation of how the Spaghetti Monster was here before the rest of us? Again, I’m not trying to say the Pastafarian religion is wrong, I just want the facts so that I can understand. Thanks.


144 Responses to “I dont want this to sound rude”

  1. jaapdurand says:

    So J,

    You go for superior. Good for you.

    But your belief is inferior to the naturalistic axiom in science.

    You are for faith more than proof it seems.

    Before Darwin scientists had to prove there stance. Now with the naturalistic axiom they can go by blind faith that everything has a naturalistic explanation.

    You are a scientist J. You go by blind faith also. I still say: good for you.

  2. One Eyed Jack says:

    Good for you! Expose those scientists for what they are! All that hype about the “scientific method”, “peer review”, and “evidence”… nothing but double talk. People like you and me, we know the truth. They’re making the whole thing up and taking it on faith. All a big scam so they can cash in on the big grant money.

  3. chris says:

    You are all educated evil stupid by the Word God. Timecube is the only explanation for FSM existing before the world. It is made possible by 4 simultaneous days.


  4. Cap'n Saucy says:

    I thought I got rid of my ridivule. I took the Penicillin. Darn! No more cavorting with wanton pirates for me. Well, maybe just on weekends. And holidays.

  5. Mad Bomber says:

    Stephanie, I prefer to think of it this way:

    If you understand J’s argument that the idea of God is a creation of man, and that it took a long period of time before this man-made idea emerged…

    and, as Zok pointed out, there is the idea that FSM divinely inspired (with his noodley appendage) man to create worldly pasta, meatbulbs, and tomato sauce in his image. Or perhaps He was directly responsible for the creation of worldly noodles and some historic figure (probably in spite of pirates) claimed to have done so.

    Either way you can see how the idea of creation of man by a man-made creation is not limited to Pastafarianism.

  6. J says:

    @ jaapdurand,
    Hi, again. (Sorry for the long pause. Was out.)
    Bit confused by the way your statement swings from ‘But your belief is inferior to the naturalistic axiom in science’ to ‘You are a scientist’, but I’ll put that down to the innate paradox of being both atheist and pastafarian. All in a day’s parody.
    I do appreciate your readiness to say ‘Good for you’. That’s always nice.
    I only ‘go for superior’, though, in so far as that I see reason as superior to wilful unreason as a foundation for any structure of social intercourse, including morality and education.
    The suggestion that a naturalistic approach proceeds by ‘blind faith’ is (no beating about the bush, here) a pernicious lie. If you believe that, pray for your kettle to boil, pray for your car to run on a tank full of marmalade, pray for God to any damn thing that anybody could actually clearly recognise *at all*. He won’t appear, your car will need fixing and you’ll be drinking cold coffee. Why? Because there is no god.
    You, I and every person on this planet founds 99% of our decisions on basic natualistic principles. Were we to suddenly inject religious faith into our routines in place of observable experience and probability-based predictions wil-he nil-he, in the manner of the above examples, we would be locked away somewhere safe. And yet we are apparently prepared to make passionate statements regarding the treatment of different sexes, of different sexualities, of pregnant mothers and of embryos and more based purely on religious faith.
    And why?
    Because in these areas the appropriate observable experience and probability-based predictions are not as readily available to us. We’d actually have to *listen* to people who know more than us on the subject! What *arrogance*!
    Because ancient books written by people with vastly, vastly less advanced an understanding of the world *tell* us what to think and we somehow feel that these are to be preferred to the knowledge attained by the pure diligent effort of people who have applied the same simple reasoning we employ when we switch on our kettles to ever more complex and complex matters, over generations?
    This is like refusing to thank your parents for your Christmas presents because your friend at school told you that they’re from Father Christmas. Fine(ish) – when you’re three. We are past this, aren’t we?
    I’m not a scientist and I’ve been a Christian (which was lovely, in case you assume that it must not have been). But you can’t become a thinking, reasonably well-educated adult in our culture today without facing a massive contradiction between your actual experiences and any theistic faith you might hold. The fact that these contradictions aren’t screamingly obvious is a testament to the subtlety that religious doctrines have attained, the hangover of automatic societal respect for religions, the sheer exposure we have had to them since our childhood, and the extent to which we simply *want* to believe them.
    This is not good enough. We can do better.
    And, I can quite assure you, secular humanism *is* better. Not easier. But better.
    Spare a thought, if you are (as I’m assuming) a theist, for all the gods you don’t believe in, by the way. I suppose there must be some wonderful reason why your particular god exists and those billions of other people are so desperately wrong.
    Sorry if this is a bit harshly stated. It’d be twice as long if I padded it out with niceties. There’s always room for you in the world of humanism, though. You may not love the sound of it, but – as a wise man once said – you know it makes sense.

  7. Left-Handed Jane says:

    And spaghetti wasn’t made till sometime after they figured out how to brown ground beef and put tomato sauce over the beef and noodles. Is there some explanation of how the Spaghetti Monster was here before the rest of us?
    The Noodly Flying Spagetti Monster came to ‘them’, as you say, in a dream and gave them a vision of how to make pasta, ground beef, and noodles. It’s obvious, really.
    May you be blessed by His Noodly Appendage.

  8. St John the Blasphemist says:

    Yes – the FSM actually manifested Himself to the Romans and the Chinese and they made noodles/spaghetti in His image to pay tribute to His greatness.
    Because of the versatility of this ingredient, and the deliciousness of the dishes that they now had the ability to prepare from it, it became so popular that people have long since forgotten its original purpose.
    Until now.

Leave a Reply