Door propaganda

Published July 6th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson


Our neighbor was hanging up a maria and jesus-icon in the hallway. We couldn’t let it hang unanswered.

Keep up the great work of spreading the words of The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Regards from Chillnest :)


164 Responses to “Door propaganda”

  1. ohaiguys says:

    sorry if i upsetted you, i feel im giving Gordon due respect but Atsap is giving me no reason to do him the curtesy of a dignified response. hes called me crazy and ignorant for my beliefs and been extremely disrespectful to my attempts to explain the questions he posed. im not going to waste my time on an organised response to this, your experience with him may be different but hes being pretty patronising to me so i dont feel the need treat his comments with dignity.
    like ive said, humanities punishment for defying God is seperation from him. this seperation means that we now live with the consequences of human sin. God is all powerful but he no longer asserts his power on earth because humanity defied him. I truly believe that these members of the clergy who did this will be held accountable for their sins on judgement day (sorry to get preachy on you), theyre not getting away with anything. God having a “grand plan” is a common misconception about Christian belief. God is everywhere but he is not controlling everything, if that was a belief of Christianity then who would follow it beliving that God controlled sin. God gave us free will so we WOULDNT just belive blindly. with free will we can challenge him, ask ourselves these questions which i myself have asked in the past and find a belief in him for ourselves, at the core of Christian belief is a personal devotion and a conscious decision to put oursleves at his mercy, however being imperfect we use this free will to defy him.
    to say God would be happy with us using our logic to turn away from him is to assume that he exists, and if he exists why would he be glad were saying he doesnt?
    id like to hear your thoughts

    • Danimal says:


      I get the feeling this argument is going to start going in circles so I want to step back and condense my point. I wish I could say that people can believe what they want to believe as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone but I don’t think it’s that simple. To use one example that we’ve already touched on, sexually abusive priests are able to have access to children, and gain the trust of a child because of the authority granted to them by religion. This doesn’t mean that all religious people are monsters, or that the religion specifically calls for the abuse of children but the faith that people are expected to commit to their religion creates an environment where these children can be abused. You can substitute abusive priests for, al qaeda, the IRA, the caste system of India, etc. You could argue that religion wasn’t designed to be used as a tool for evil but the fact remains that it IS used as a tool for evil. In the end I don’t care if there is or isn’t a god. I don’t care if this potential god is angry because I work to dismantle the concept of religion. What I do care about breaking down the credibility of religion so that it can’t be used as a tool for evil. I’m sorry that means undermining your faith because I’m sure it helps you cope with the difficulties of life but lots of people are able to enrich their own lives and the lives of those around them without religion. If there was proof that god existed I would reconsider my argument. As you told Gordon there is no proof that your god doesn’t exist just like there is also no proof that the FSM doesn’t exist yet everyone finds the concept of a flying monster totally ridiculous. Do you see now how this applies to your own god?

      • ohaiguys says:

        thats the best reason for promoting atheism i ever heard. youre right. religion is used as a tool of evil like in the crusades and the examples you gave. I have come to terms with the fact that horrible things have been done in the name of my God, but i dont let that cloud my perception of God himself. and im not sure that breaking down religions credibility, getting religious people all worked up about it and defying religion itslef is the right way to go about combatting these evils because not only are you going to offend a lot of well intentioned people in the process but it really draws away from all the great things religion does do and you cant say there arent many. sure there are a lot of paths to fullfillment and dealing with lifes problems of which religion is only one path, but i believe that the only path to salvation and everlasting life is faith, a part of which is living a life of compassion, generosity and kindness (when followed in the way God intended) and i dont see anything wrong with that. I have never used my religion to demean anyone because as these priests prove simply being part of a religion doesnt make you a better person but if you follow the correct teachings then you will probably become one.
        But i guess the argument for God is a two sided coin and theres nothing i can say thats going to convince you he exists (not that thats what ive been trying to do this whole time) just like nothing you can say will sway my faith. I just hope one day God will reveal himself to you.
        man i feel like Kyle at the end of an episode of South Park when he talks about the lesson hes learned with the soft piano in the background.

        • ohaiguys says:

          should probably remind you, the reason i can come to terms with the atrocities commited in the name of my God is that i can look at the actions of the people who commited them and i can look at the Bible and i can see where they went wrong and i know that these acts are a result of human misuse of the passion religion gives us that lead to its contradiction.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Ohaiguys, you look at the OT actions of the people who committed atrocities as the human misuse of the passion of religion? How about the atrocities that God himself committed?

          For example, Joshua 10:11 “And as it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel and were in the going down to Bethoron, the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.”

          And then there were the first-born of Egypt, including tiny babes, which the LORD killed to teach the pharoah a lesson.

          The Great Flood destroyed millions, including little children and sweet old grandmas.

          These are just three of many examples. An estimate of the number of people killed by your “merciful God” in the OT is 30 million.

          By comparison, Hitler was a piker.

          I await your explanation of how your God can be loving with a record like that.

        • Danimal says:

          Yeah, I really didn’t think anyone’s mind was going to be changed here. I won’t ever understand how you’ve come to terms with the atrocities done in the name of religion when, if there is a god, he could just step in and stop them. I’m not saying if there is a god he should fix all of our problems, just the shit done in his name. I guess he has a plan?

          I do not wish for the church to be destroyed entirely because your right there are a lot of good things done by the church as well. As far as me offending a lot of well intentioned people, they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions so I’m not really worried about that. I just want a consensus that the church is fallible. While you may be more level headed in that regard by being able to admit that mistakes have been, are being, and will be made, not everyone who shares your faith can accept or admit that fact. These blind faithful, while maybe not the majority, do have a loud voice *cough fox news cough* and that’s what I would hope to do away with. If christianity and it’s good book (or any religion and it’s related text) were admitted as fallible then every crazy opinion under the sun would carry a lot less weight just because some wacko said he interrupted the bible that way.

          As far as never using your religion to demean someone, on July 24th you said, “Yes the act of homosexuality is a sin…” I sure see that as pretty demeaning.


        • Gordon_UK says:


          “As far as never using your religion to demean someone, on July 24th you said, “Yes the act of homosexuality is a sin…” I sure see that as pretty demeaning.”

          Apparently that’s OK as that’s what he believes!! But oddly they still demand respect from us even if we think similarly of them as they do of gays.


        • ohaiguys says:

          like ive said, these acts were in harmony with Gods will. i dont blame God because someone got his message wrong, God isnt fate hes not responsible for the bad things that happen. you still dont seem to understand the fact that humanitys punishment for defying God is seperation from him. this is why he doesnt step in and bail us out of every bad situation that comes our way. we can appeal to him through prayer but i understand his logic that if we choose to reject him he has no cause to prevent us from dealing with the consequences of this rejection.
          Homosexuality is a sin, so is stealing, lying, cursing and lust. i dont go up to people who do these things and tell them God hates them because he doesnt. i would certainly NEVER tell a gay person that they are a bad persong for being gay because thats just not true. Discrimanation is a sin and demeaning gays for being homosexual goes against Jesus’ teachings pf forgiveness. like ive said i have no problem with someone who is not a Christian being gay because if they dont belive in God and his prupose for our bodies what reason do they have not to be gay? i dont think of them as immoral for it. if you want to talk about demeaning people for theyre beliefs, maybe yo should step back and take a look at some of the activities FSM takes part in. point in case Chillnest’s original picture. remember that? dont you think Alfonse might feel demeaned? and Gordon ive never made that argument. i would like to have thought you didnt think of me as one of those christians on a powetrip who thinks the Bible is the be all and end all for justifying anything i say, ive given explanations of anything in the Bible when youve asked, id appreciate not to be labeled as a self righteous Bible basher.

        • ohaiguys says:

          sorry, meant to say these acts were NOT in harmony, clarify that all beforementioned acts were NOT in harmony with Gods will. man i gotta proof read BEFORE i post

  2. Gordon_UK says:


    The point was that if god was infallible there would be an exact number of days in Earth orbit, i.e. 365 rather the 365.25.

    “i just dont think people are born gay, it might feel that way to some homosexuals if they decided very early on” are you taking the P1SS? Are you saying as a young child they suddenly thought one day ‘you know I rather prefer my own gender’ this happening before they know the difference between straight and gay?

    Greek? Sorry I didn’t think Jesus was Greek or his Apostles! “the Codex might be more accurate than you think” Come on, as I said it was amended dramatically at the time (350 years after the fact) and again some 300 years later. Change kill to murder and that means a huge difference! And that doesn’t take in to account of the multitude versions. Going back to Exodus 22:20 ref (23/07/10) simple example;

    Douay-Rheims Bible
    “He that sacrificeth to gods, shall be put to death, save only to the Lord.”
    God’s word translation
    “Whoever sacrifices to any god except the LORD must be condemned and destroyed”
    King James
    “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed”

    Now the first two seem to direct it’s followers to kill non believers and the 3rd seems to say that non believers will meet their doom, big difference, which one is right.

    Christmas was moved from the 6th January to 25th December in about the 4th century as Yule was taking all the lime light.

    Again any believe should be based on fact or what is provable rather then what cant be disproved. It’s like me saying you can’t disprove my claim that I have a penguin tied up in the boot of my car.

    So far what I can gather from you is that you hold scripture ‘knowledge’ over fact based knowledge, personally I find that trait dangerous in a person and I hope this is something you grow out of as you see more of the world.


    PS- sorry if this posts a few times for some reason the originals don’t seem to post

    4th time lucky

    • ohaiguys says:

      the number of days in a year does not disprove the existance of God. i see the point youre making but i dont think its a very convincing one.
      no i didnt say people just up and decide to be gay. but i dont think of homosexuality as some kind of mental conditon someone is born with, conditions early in life might influence theyre sexuality to develop this way but i dont think people are born with it. thats just what i think, you might think differently but i think its pretty irrelevant to the discussion.
      Corinthains was written to Corinth. a city in Greece. hence, the Apostle Paul (who could write in Greek as he spent three years establishing the church in Corinth) had to write it in Greek so people could understand the thing. look it up. it was written in Greek. thats just one example.
      i dont see why youre arguing against the interpretation of a verse that tells people to kill non belivers, but it looks to me like this translation was made to better allow people to understand what is being said in the verse. what this verse is saying is that those who reject Gos’s punishment is death, death being losing access to the everlasting life Christians are promised, inciting violence against non Christians would be in itself contrary to Christian values of love and evangelism. interpereting the Bible is something we are encouraged to do, like ive saide before i dount any major message or beliefs would be lost in such translation. btw, what verse is that from because it looks like something from the Old Testament which probably would have been changed quite a bit over the years (which doesnt concern me too much because Christians take theyre beliefs from the New Testament).
      i belive in fact based knowledge. i belive in evolution and i believe in the big bang is the most like theory for the creation of the universe and anything that has been proved by science. the kind of faith you just identified is a blind and uninquisitive one. i dont think that science has yet come across a discovery that disproves God, rather i see these discoveries of an exploration of Gods works. for instance the big bang (which was first hypothesized by a catholic priest btw) is really only half a theory saying that two nothing particles made of nothing rubbed together for no reason and resulted in everything being made. im not trying to be condescending but summed up thats pretty much it. in his A Brief History of the Universe (or something like that) Stephen Hawkins admits theyre is room for a creator in what science has discovered about the origins of the universe and science only goes so far to explain where it came from, i dont think a belief in God encourages an ignorance or a lazy “oh God did it” attitude. also there is sufficient unbias recorded evidence saying that Jesus came back from the dead, youll probably say this was all part of the hoax but i find it really reasurring.
      as for the whole proof line your towing so faithfully and the douglas adams fairy quote, i see the universe as proof of Gods existance. i think religion is the logical choice because, as John Lennox put it, if you see a beautiful garden of course you dont believe there are faries in it, but you do belive there is a gardener who created and tended the garden and made it the way it is. to speak as though science answers all questions is a mistake.

      • Gordon_UK says:


        At last something we agree on “to speak as though science answers all questions is a mistake” quite right if it did we would have beer that did not give you a hangover in the morning! The answers science does have are based on evidence, where our logic differs is that you are just assuming there is a gardener where I would want to meet the gardener. Personally some of the most breath taking ‘gardens’ I have seen have had no human intervention.

        You did say people decide to be gay – “i too have some gay friends but i belive that to shun them for their life choices “ and “i just dont think people are born gay, it might feel that way to some homosexuals if they decided very early on”. The main point is that because your faith tells you it’s so you believe it rather then looking at all the possible information on the subject, read the article theFewtheProudtheMarinara posted on the 30/07/10 (which fits other information I have read on the subject) and please explain again how being gay is a ‘life choice’ rather then something your born with.

        Now back on the bible, now from my understanding the new testament is validated by the prophecies in the old testament, so if the old is flawed then the new is built on poor foundations. Also as the new is built on the old and the whole of Christian faith is built on these two books both of which are meant to be the word of god who are you to ‘interpret’ his word? And as Genesis is the Christian explanation on how we got here how can you say that you also believe in evolution and big bang? Surely to do so is to say Genesis is wrong which means the old testament wrong and also the prophecies which legitimatise the new.

        Stephen Hawkins also does not say there is a creator, he also claims that there is room for aliens (quite rightly), how does this fit with the Christian faith? Would they also go to heaven or would they have their own?

        Could you provide your “sufficient unbias recorded evidence saying that Jesus came back from the dead”.

        Now the days in the year thing was a simple illustration of how the universe is imperfect to counter the often used argument by theists (including Christians) that the universe is perfect and therefore proof of a creator.

        “as for the whole proof line your towing so faithfully” I’m sorry if that upsets you but that’s the problem when you are arguing with someone that has some when you don’t, cant be helped.

        John Lennox your answer to Richard Dawkins, no sleep lost there! John Lennox proof that Oxford is not what it used to be! You like John Lennox have so far been unable to prove shit!



        • ohaiguys says:

          thats a good point about meeting the gardener, but the point that illustration makes is that faith is not without evidence. it is by no means illogical to believe that if something exists someone must have put it there, the question of who or what and in some cases how it was put it there has not been answered by science but it has by faith with science as proof.
          i did read that article when it was posted and it said that the study is still under way and no conclusive proof has been given. just like with the existance for God with you, if conclusive proof is given i will accept it as fact. i dont get how being gay is not a life choice, even if it could be something you are born with that doesnt mean all gays are born with it and none of them make the choice, look at Elton John for example, he wasnt born gay. Christianity teaches homosexuality as a sin because it defies Gods purpose for our bodies, hence for it to appear as a bad thing one needs to belive in a God. for this reason i dont have a problem with people who are not Christians being gay because there is no reason for them not to be gay and like ive said and youve quoted me one, to hate someone on religious grounds for being gay is antiproductive, hypocritical (as we have all sinned) and not in the teachings of Jesus.

          the New Testament is not validated by the teaching of the Old Testament (in most cases at least), in fact im sure youre aware there are many teachings in the New Testament that conflict outright with the Old Testament. the Old Testament was the law for when God was the God of the Jewish nation, revelation through Jesus made him the God of all people, they are two very different laws, the Old Testament is included in the Christian Bible because it portrays the law that Jesus fulfilled (the promise of the Messiah and the revolution of the faith) and it comments often on the nature of the Christian God. its a difficult concept to explain and one ive only recently began to grasp but the way i see it, Christianities sacred text is the New Testament and Judaisms sacred Text is the Torah (Old Testament), it would be pretty strange of us to say “we must be right, the Jews are saying it!” (not to put anything on the Jews, just different religions, you know what i mean)(i hope)

          i didnt say Stephen Hawkins said there is a creator, he said there IS ROOM for one. as for aliens, by your own reasoning seeing as there is no actual evidence for aliens then one cant argue theyre existence (this is not the case for religion as ive discussed before), personally i like to think there is intelligent simply for the sake of my adventurous side. i dont know how it would affect my faith if they were proven to exist, i cant imagine it would be too negative, but seeing as they havent i dont trouble myself with the worry.

          the recorded evidence was provided in a lecture by John Dickson i attended i dont remember off the top of my head exactly where it was from (i do remember one of them was a non-Christian Arabic scholar) ill try and look it up for you. this probably looks like im bullshitting but keep pestering me about it ill keep looking for it. while you mentioned it you should probably check out John Dickson, hes a historian who writes alot about the historical evidence for Christianity there might be something that answers your question abot the validity of the Bible.

          yeah i see what youre saying with the days in the year but really its just not something i find challenging, faith is stronger than just “oh, the days in a year isnt a whole number! laters God!”

          like ive said, all of existance is proof of a creator, science only gives half a theory on the beginning of the universe, that one second there was nothing and the next there was everything, there isnt any reason or cause behind it but God completes the picture.

          come on, Dawkins hardly held his own in the God delusion debate, i might just be saying that because im a Christian and i watched it that way but i think if i was an atheist id be pretty confronted by Lennox because he is proof that intelligence and faith are not incompatible qualities, he knows everything there is to know about evolution and scientific beginnings and still he is a strong Christian. id appreciate it if youd stop acting as though i have no case to make, i feel as though im making fair arguments here and so far you havent proven anything to me that i didnt already know.

        • ohaiguys says:

          oh and on that Genisis/big bang thing, Christians need to be careful when reading parts of the Bible literally. Genisis was written in a time when Judaism was still being formed, science was thousands of years away from providing answers to the physical beginnings of the universe and so like most religions of the time they provided answers, when the Bible was compiled it was still seen as a literal story and thats why its included. im not saying its all crap, but we need to be careful about what we take to be entirely literal. Besides, the Genisis story has vary little to do with the practical teaching of Jesus. im sure alot of Christians would disagree with me passionately, but i like to keep an open mind when approaching the possible fallacies of he church and the Bible. that might seem like a weak argument to you, but thats the way i see it and thats what got me out with my faith intact when i first came into contact with the big bang theory.

        • Gordon_UK says:


          “it is by no means illogical to believe that if something exists someone must have put it there”

          Good point, you say god exists so it’s not illogical to believe that someone put it (him?) there, looking at it further where did he exist before he created the universe? Is he from a different universe? Is there only one of his kind? It would be odd that the same process then created a ‘god’ did not make more then one, unless he is the last of his kind. Maybe there is more then one which would explain all the different religions with different gods.

          “if conclusive proof is given i will accept it as fact”

          Why do you not apply this to your god?

          “look at Elton John for example, he wasnt born gay”

          Was unaware that you where close enough to Sir Elton John for him to tell you this.

          “Christianity teaches homosexuality as a sin because it defies Gods purpose for our bodies”

          Are you sure this is not another one of those thinks in the bible that your not meant to take literally? Or is that something you get to pick and chose depending on the situation?

          “the New Testament is not validated by the teaching of the Old Testament (in most cases at least)”

          It is or it isn’t pick one side.

          “the Old Testament was the law for when God was the God of the Jewish nation”

          So who was the god(s) of the other Nation(s)? What happened to them?

          “the Old Testament is included in the Christian Bible because it portrays the law that Jesus fulfilled (the promise of the Messiah and the revolution of the faith)”

          That’s what I was on about, without the OT Jesus would not of been considered the messiah, therefore as the NT is based Jesus’s teachings it needs the OT to hold up the claim he was the messiah.

          “there is no actual evidence for aliens”

          Apart from the Martian bacteria dating from apx 3.6 to 4 billion years ago.

          “John Dickson”

          The failed pop star / TV presenter?

          “Dawkins hardly held his own in the God delusion debate”

          What the one back on 2007? That was not a debate on the god delusion, it was Dawkins reading part of his book and Lennox attacking it without giving Dawkins a chance to respond.

          “he knows everything there is to know about evolution and scientific beginnings” (of John Lennox)

          What? No he is a Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science and not an Evolutionary biology!

          “so far you havent proven anything to me that i didnt already know”

          You are the one saying there is a god so the burden of proof is on you not me.

          The one point I would like to hear your views on is how you god was created because if everything else needs a creator so does he.



        • Danimal says:

          Maybe the FSM created god but didn’t think much of him so it never made it into Bobby’s original letter. Or maybe god sits on the back of a giant turtle.

        • Gordon_UK says:


          Possibly as some form of caretaker while he went off to the pub?

          The FSM happy with his creation decides to fuck off down the pub for a quick pint and leaves his new ‘god’ to look after things. The FSM being the FSM this tuns in to more then a quick pint and he does not make it back until the mid 20th century to find god has made a right cock up of it! This is further backed up by the fact that since the mid 20th century the world has become safer and healthier place to live. And to anyone claiming that this is down to scientific advancements they are clearly wrong as it’s the FSM nudging them scientific bods along.

    • ohaiguys says:

      dammit Gordon this is going to take forever k here we go
      God is eternal, he always was and always will be, the laws of time dont apply to him. i can see how that explanation would probably be unsatisfactory to you but seeing as the atheistic belief about the origin of the universe is that it just happened, i dont see this as too much of a stretch.
      like i say time and time again, i have soon no proof that has come close to conclusive that God exists and i see proof that he does in all things.
      maybe you should talk to Elton Johns ex wife about whether he was born gay. even if people can be born gay, thats not to say there arent people who decide to be later on.
      yes i am pretty certain that as God gave us sex as a means of reproducion or as an expression of love betweeen a married man and woman can be taken literally, unless you can give an example of how this could be taken in any other way.
      look, just read through the OT and the NT and you can see that the Ot’s message is believe in God and obey the law and youll go to heaven. the message of the NT that Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins and overcame death so that any sins (including homosexuality) can be forgiven through repentance and all God asks for in return is that we obey the laws of love, forgiveness and humilty in observance with his plan. christianity is not just Judaism with some geezer on a cross thrown in.
      thats the first ive heard of martian bacteria, an unless this life is intelligent it hink its a pretty moot point.
      no youre thinking of Ian Dickson. im talking about John Dickson as in http://thechristfiles.com.au/
      aw, poor little Dawkins. i saw a fair bit of discussion between the two and Dawkins’ conclusive statement was that the existance of a God is possible but very highly unlikely. that doesnt sound like a very conclusive theory from a man whose supposed to be the most researched atheist of our time.
      i think its a fair assumption to make that someone with a fellowship in philosophy of science and who teaches science at Oxford, not to mention someone who debates about the creation of the universe almost for a living, would know a fair bit about the scientific beginnings of the universe and i imagine he would pick up quite a bit about evolution along the way.
      why should the burden of proof be on me? creationism has been around for longer than the big bang theory, and by your own logic something should be proven beyond doubt before it is believed, God created the universe and he revealed himself through the scriptures and Christ Jesus. i say the big bang happened because God made it so, you say it happened for no reason, by your own logic you should prove this before you denounce the theory that there was no God in the equation.

      thats an interesting idea that God is an intern for FSM, lets not forget that the head of the Catholic church is in Italy, and whats a much loved dish by the Italians? food for thought that is (pardon the pun).

      • Gordon_UK says:


        First point to make is that being Atheist just means that you do not believe a god(s) you don’t have to believe in the big bang or evolution, though most do.

        “God is eternal, he always was and always will be, the laws of time dont apply to him” – (Remove the word god and you could be talking about doctor who)

        That is not an explanation that’s scripture, please explain how something that with no beginning came in to being in the beginning.

        Elton John, what you need to remember is that is was illegal to be gay in England and Wales until 1967 and in Scotland until 1980. Try looking at things in context.

        John Dickson check your facts. “He began his career as singer/songwriter for Aussie rock band In The Silence, touring and recording for seven years” from his own website http://johndickson.org/bio.

        Lennox is a Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics he dose not teach Science, try again.

        Your the one saying there is a god (and yours one being the right one and not the others) without any prove.



        • ohaiguys says:

          i understand that but you can hardly expect me to address all the beliefs of all atheists, those are the two big one so let stick with that.
          if i removed the word God i could also be talking about FSM, or Mick Jagger. whats your point?
          Elton John married his wife in 1984, thats the context im looking at seeing as its the correct one. but anyway i think he was bisexual before that so maybe hes not the perfect example but do you really think its impossible for someone to be born heterosexual and become homosexual later on in life?

          well i guess scripture is all i have on the matter and if you wont accept it as my belief and not yours then weve hit a dead end. however on the same topic, how can you explain the universe coming into existance without a catalyst or action. either something had a beginning and end or it has always been, i believe God to be the latter.okay John Dickson used to be in a band, thats a fun fact, thanks for the trivia. now hes a historian who researches the historical groundings of Christian scripture. btw my dad has a dvd of his that might have those sources you wanted on it next time im at his house ill check it out for you.

          i didnt say Science, i said philosophy of science, to be honest i dont know the difference but im sure there is one.
          “John Carson Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College.”
          “Lennox received his first doctorate, also from the University of Cambridge for his thesis Centrality and Permutability in Soluble Groups” (i have no idea what that means but it sounds pretty scientific to me)
          “In addition he teaches on Science and Religion in the University of Oxford. He is the author of a number of books on the relations of science with religion and ethics”
          thats just off a wiki page, i didnt need to do much research to figure that out.

          are you not reading what i say? God created the universe and revealed himself through Jesus and the scriptures, the only thing we disagree on is tht i belive what Jesus says and you dont, that is the ONLY difference in our beliefs on existance. thats my eveidence, now if you would like to give some of your own evidence which directly proves your own theory and disproves mine you should put it forward before denouncing my beliefs.

        • Gordon_UK says:


          You are the one coming here telling us we are wrong and you are validating your reasoning/arguments by claiming there is a god, therefore the burden proof is on you solely.

          Unless you can prove without doubt your claim in a god (or even your version) and what his intentions are/where you can not use any argument that uses this as finite. So you cant say homosexuality IS a sin until you can prove there is a god and he said it was. Believe does not count as proof!

          “can hardly expect me to address all the beliefs of all atheists” – “are you not reading what i say?” try reading what I posted “Atheist just means that you do not believe a god(s)” that’s only one belief (or lack of one).

          Elton John – find me any quote from him that says he became gay though choice otherwise stop claiming things you don’t know for sure.

          John Lennox, you said “who teaches science at Oxford” now your saying “i didnt say Science, i said philosophy of science” try reading your own posts. I got my info from someone at Oxford rather then rely on wikipedia – I wont post what people think of him as it may get Bobby and myself in to trouble.

          “are you not reading what i say?” yes but I am still waiting for your proof.


  3. Danimal says:

    Look, when someone kills or assaults someone else because they believe god told them to, this didn’t punish me but it made christianity look pretty bad. So your argument that god doesn’t intervene to stop atrocities being committed in his name because he is punishing mankind doesn’t make sense.

    If you don’t understand how it would be demeaning to say to someone,

    “i guess you need to believe in God to accept the point that homosexuality is not in his plan, i can understand why you would be opposed to this doctrine but i hope you realise that gays are (or perhaps are supposed to be is a better term) allowed into the faith and offerd salvation just as readily as people who skip church on sundays or swear at their parents.”

    then I think we have hit a brick wall in this conversation. Granted I don’t see why someone who is gay would WANT to be a christian because of attitudes like yours.

    As far as chillnests original picture goes when did he ever say he thought less of christianity? By answering the christian symbol waiting for a response, chillnest is encouraging debate not putting anyone down. His drawing of the FSM is not an, “overt mockery of the christian faith” Pastafarians demean religion in two instances:
    1. When someone comes into our house (venganza.org) and tries to use religion as proof of anything besides the fact that if you scare people hard enough with the threat of an afterlife of torment, they will believe anything you want.
    2. When people try to use religion as a guiding factor in public policy.
    In other words we demean things that are done without logic, evidence, or good solid reason. For example if someone has a cavity and they sleep with a live snake under their pillow to make it go away because a voice in their head told them it would work, I might have a snarky comment about that too. Especially if a dentist has already advised them on proper oral care. I see nothing wrong with being critical of bad decisions made for bad reasons.

    • ohaiguys says:

      okay lets use the metaphorical Genisis story and see if that helps. originally God made Adam and Eve without a distinction between good and evil, the only negative (that is “dont do this”) commandment he gave them was not to eat from the tree of knowledge. then the Devil told man that God didnt want them to eat from the tree because it would make us like God. Man was all like “hurrdurr i wanna be like God” so he ate from the tree, but the fruit exposed him to a knowledge of evil. because God had told man not to eat from the tree in the first place, he is not obliged to prevent us from dealing with the consequences of our races knowledge and hece ability to do evil. and so he left us with this ability as punishment for disobeying what was originally one simple commandment. now to enjoy Gods future we have to appeal to his forgiveness and accept him as God, we do this by repenting our sins and doing our utmost to obey his laws. having said all that, just keep in mind that the Genesis is an allegory for the imperfections of humanity, but hopefully it makes more sense to you now.
      attitudes like mine? what attitudes are they Danimal? that there is nothing wrong with being gay if you dont believe in God? that even if you do believe in God and are gay you can appeal for forgiveness and have a place in heaven? that looking down on or criticising gays is not only a sin but counterproductive to the image and peace of our church? are those the attitudes you mean? there are christians, christians i know personally, who have far worse views about gays than me, views which are, by the way, denounced in the Bible by the teaching to love your enemy and thy neighbour as you love yourself. sure, denounce people of my faith if they speak hatred of gays, id agree if you did, but i havent said anything remotely hateful about gays unless you consider the fact that i belive it to be out of Gods plan hateful, which i think is a gross misconception and exaggeration. if a gay person came to me and said they wanted to be a Christian, i would welcome them with open arms and let them make a decision about their sexuality for themself. i think youve been pretty respectful so far about my views, especially considering the circumstances but dont start labeling me now as some anti-gay fundamentalist. sorry if you feel like im overeacting to a small part of your argument, but to be honest i found that pretty offensive and not just as a christian.

      okay, if Chillnest wants to open a debate he should go right in and ask for one openly, doesnt he owe Alfonse that curtesy? he shouldnt put it up for everyone to see and come back here and snicker about it to fellow Pastafarians, thats not how to look for a debate, thats just childishly looking for praise at someone elses expense. look, i dont really care what he puts above his door, im just pointing out reasons he shouldnt be so condescending and i think youll agree the argument outweighs the cause.

      • ohaiguys says:

        btw, im not a Christian because im afraid of hell, im a Christian because i want heavan. as achristian i have no need to be afraid of hell. religion isnt proof of anything, the way i see it creation is proof that religion is right, thats where we disagree.
        and i think religion is as good a thing as any to guide public policy for its ethics and values, but as Pastafarians quite rightly argue public policy should not be used to impose religion because there are members of the public who are not religious and to do so would be contradictory to the idea of a free public.

        • Not so hairless Ape says:

          “…and i think religion is as good a thing as any to guide public policy for its ethics and values”

          Which religion? Whose ethics and values?

          I’m fairly sure you’d say christianity is the correct choice, right? Which denomination? Which sect of that denomination?

          Details are important.

        • ohaiguys says:

          what, so you can berrate me on the inadequacies of the denomination i choose? i mean religion in general, if the ethics of most (MOST) religions are followed correctly, then i think for the most part it would be a pretty just society. im not saying a totalitarian religious regime would be a good thing, just taking a look at some Islamic states proves thats often a bad choice, but i think it would be a stretch to say that the ethics and morals of most (the main five international religons at least) religions are pretty sound to run a country on. of course im just making a generalisation here, not all religions should be followed to the letter if there are people in the community who are not a believer of that faith, point in case being the dogma against homosexuality wve already discussed.

      • Danimal says:

        Let me point out the attitudes to which I take exception:

        “that even if you do believe in God and are gay you can appeal for forgiveness and have a place in heaven?”
        No one should have to apologize or or seek forgiveness for who they are.

        I find it frustrating that you use the phrase “love your enemy” when discussing how christians should treat the LGTB community. Right there you are using biblical rhetoric to cast homosexuals as the bad guy or enemy. It’s subtle and I would guess you’ve grown up with it so you wouldn’t notice it right away but through that simple phrase it casts heterosexuals as normal and homosexuals as “the other” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other ). It is the same strategy whites used against blacks in the years after the civil war. Peggy McIntosh has an essay called “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, based on racial inequality.” which focuses on these subtle and unseen dividers. Even though it focuses on race the same concepts can be applied to this debate.

        Sure chillnest could go up to his neighbor and ask for a debate, but I don’t know what kind of relationship they have. It might seem a little awkward to walk next door without knowing the person and demand a measuring of the minds about religion. Then again hanging a sign showing a different (not necessarily opposing) viewpoint opens the door for debate without rudely demanding his neighbor walk through it. If his neighbor doesn’t want to discuss his religious views all he has to do is not say anything. You assign actions to chillnest that aren’t actually there,

        “…come back here and snicker about it to fellow Pastafarians”

        Please show me where chillnest made a negative comment or a put down about his neighbor. Where did he “snicker” to our community? You’re working on creating a straw man argument here which has been point out to you numerous times by a few different posters. Chillnest did not do anything aggressive, rude, or offensive, the only thing he did was have a view point different than your own. And don’t pretend like you have the moral high ground when it comes to maturity in starting debates. Your first two posts here were sarcastic insults to the pastafarian community. I’ve seen how you start debates and I was not impressed. I do appreciate that after your initial posts you did engage in a more honest discussion. I don’t think you’re overacting, I enjoy the intensity of the debate. I think we are both expressing our points directly and I’ve found some of the things you’ve said pretty offensive too, but that’s good because it means we are exploring things outside of our comfort zones.


        • ohaiguys says:

          i dont see how what ive said about homosexuals could be percieved as me thinking theyre my enemy. and in the face of an infallible God who as sinners we have all failed, we should all apologize for who we are, that includes myself and even the best of Christians, not just homosexuals. yeah i suppose the “love your enemy” quote would have come across as a bit harsh, but what i meant by it is that even if Christians percieve homosexuals as an enemy (or “Other”), which they shouldnt, the Bible still calls for them to love them and treat them with humility. thats why when i see all those bigots with their “God hates fags” signs, it really deeply frustrates me that people are using theyre religion as a cover for their own hateful prejudice and ignorance. i dont feel as though i cast anyone as the Other for religious purposes, but seeing as you pointed it out, are you not casting me as an Other and other Christians whenever you enter debate? is Chillnest not casting Alfonse as an Other? im not saying Christians never do it, but FSM is no innocent party either in this regard.

          “got already any comments from the neighbors? ” to which Chillnest replied;
          “No, i’m waiting :) I’m not sure if he gets angry, laugh or don’t care.”
          he then went on to say; “I’m still waiting on a reaction from my neighbor.. ”
          also his expressed conviction to not “let hang unanswered” Alfonses modest expression of faith. you may think my argument is against someone expressing a belief other than my own, but lets not forget thats exactly what Chillnest did and i think if my views are objected, mocked or countered i have every right to defend them.

          “Then again hanging a sign showing a different (not necessarily opposing) viewpoint opens the door for debate”
          i havent seen any evidence whatsoever that an FSM is “not necessarily opposing” to Christianity, isnt that it purpose? by you own and other posters admission on multiple posts, the purpose of FSM is an opposition to Christianity. i dont see how you can use the straw man argument on me when your calling what is obviously a bit of condescending satire a dignified invitation for a fair debate when it is clearly anything but. sure i might be making a few assumptions about Chillnests intentions but they are evidence based, isnt that the way you like it?

          i think its a fair assumption that the purpose of Chillnest’s icon was provoking Alfonse and i dont think its a groundless assumption either that if he had recieved the disired repsonse he would have come back here in triumph. however seeing as he evidently didnt get a response and no such post was made, i guess i dont have a complete argument, but i think it would be turning a blind eye to say the undercurrent wasnt “hey guys! look what i did! isnt it funny how im paying out Alfonse? what do you think you guys??” ive admitted there are dicks in my religion, you cant say there arent any in yours.

          however youre very right. i guess i owe everyone an apology for being such a smartass to begin with but in my defense, am i much less of a smart ass thab Bob Henderson? im not saying that in a bad way, im sure youll agree, seeing as FSM is a self admitted satire,that sometimes being a smart ass is the most effective course of action. youll have to take my word for it but i hope it some consolation that i usually take a more respectful approach in such discussions in other circumstances. although again i should have expected a discussion like this to arise and should have shown a bit of forethought in my original posts. my bad.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Bob Henderson a smartass? How dare you suggest that, ohaiguys. Bob Henderson has more brains in the toenail of his big toe than you have in your head.

          Opposing Christianity is not the FSM’s purpose. FSM’s purpose is to oppose stupid Christians who want to insert their dogma into science classes in our public schools.

          Just for the record, ohaiguys, do you support the inclusion of Creationism and/or Intelligent Design in the curriculum for biology classes? You may have stated your position buried back there in the thousands of words with which you already have cluttered this site.

        • Danimal says:

          As I understand the concept of the Other it is a majority group separating out a minority group to make them subordinate or force them to conform to the majority. So because christians are the majority and atheists are the minority, no I don’t think that’s happening here by definition of the Other.

          Just because you were offended by Chillnests sign does not mean that he posted it to mock christianity. Your evidence on which you base your assumptions is just your own personal take on the sign. Your evidence has no more weight in proving chillnests intent, than genises is evidence for how the world was created. But I doubt this will register, evidence based on imagination seems to be the way that you like it.

          I’ve never said there are no dicks in my religion, in fact quite the opposite, I’m often disappointed by some of the posts made by pastafarians. So while there are some dicks in our religion, guess what we don’t have? No crusades, suicide bombers, inquisitions, caste system, or burning people alive because we think they are witches. I think I’d prefer the dicks.

          I wasn’t being critical of you using satire. Satire can be a great tool when it is applied correctly. I was criticizing the double standard that chillnest wasn’t allowed to use satire to open a debate with his neighbor when you used it heavily when you first posted on our site.

        • Danimal says:

          One last thing

          “I don’t have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. If there is a god and he’s intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor.”
          -Bobby Henderson

          There is your evidence that the FSM isn’t necessarily opposing christianity.

        • ohaiguys says:

          I don’t think atheists are a minority and i dont see alot of force being imposed on them by Christians. maybe i did misunderstand the definition a little but still i dont think atheists are ever cast that way. as for homosexuals any christians who impose christian values on non-christian homosexuals shouldnt.its not like theyre trying to make us gay so i dont see the point. i dont support that kind of thing and im sure you agree.
          I dont see why youre defending Chillnests sign as anything other than a cop on christianity. its plain and simple a mockery. like ive said hes allowed to do it but by your own logic to say im not allowed to pose a retort as a Christian is just a double standard.
          Atheism might not have those things but it has Stalinist Russia and the Khmer Rouge. you dont condone such regimes as an atheist just like i dont condone the crusades or witch hunts as a Christian. the only difference is i can put down the Christian activities to medieval ignorance as well as the deviation from Gods will ive already mentioned.
          like i mentioned, i had nothing wrong with satire being utilized, who doesnt love a bit of satire, but id rather see it being applied to actual negligences of the church like all the bad stuff weve talked about rather than a humble doorsign.

          dont hide behind FSMs original purpose like you dont know that FSM has become a satire of all things relgious. and no, i dont suport ID being taught in science classes because its not scientific, and yes i have said that before in my posts. good luck with future fishing for bones to pick though.

        • ohaiguys says:

          and if i had a short cruise through the rest of this site im sure i could find plenty of evidence that FSM and its adherents openly oppose Christianity, Bobby’s opinion is his own but im pretty sure that the general consesus around here is that Christianity is “evidence based on imagination”.

  4. Gordon_UK says:


    Sorry after thought, with regards to your Nazi / Star of David reference (your post 24/07/10 @ 10:33PM).

    Turn your example around, would it be OK to put up a symbol that represented peace in response to one that represented a regime that responsible for the murder of millions of people?


    • ohaiguys says:

      yes. i think that would be quite appropriate, dont you? maybe i misunderstood, could you give an example? i dont quite see how this applies to the situation, ill admit even the swastika/star of david example wasnt the best one that could have been given.

      • Atsap Revol says:

        I sincerely believe that ohaiguys should be given the “Steve of God” Award for 2010. Many of you long-time Pastafarians will remember SOG who plagued this site with his endless mindless missionary messages. All in favor of giving this prestigious award to ohaiguys say aye.

        Yes, Gordon, SOG was more fun than a box of badgers for awhile, but the charm wore thin after the 100th post. I can’t remember how we got rid of SOG. Whatever the method, could we now apply it to ohaiguys? I certainly do not mean to limit intelligent debate, but ohaiguys flunked the intelligent criterion several thousand words ago.

        Also Steve of God was much better with spelling and grammar. But those are not things to take into account when judging Christian hatemail; we expect the rants to be disorganized and illiterate.

        • Gordon_UK says:

          Atsap Revol

          I still maintain that SoG’s head exploded under the weight of the contritions within his own logic.


        • Cavatelli says:

          Do you mind if I say “Arrr” instead of “aye”? Arrrr.

          BTW, I agree with Gordon, I think SoG’s head exploded when logic and his beliefs collided and reached critical mass.

    • Gordon_UK says:


      Review the photo above and tell me which one of the two icons is linked to groups who have killed millions in it’s name.

      Now you may understand (I’m not holding out much hope) why many people outside of that faith may find that icon offensive and why trying to play the poor persecuted Christian card is falling on deaf eras.


      • ohaiguys says:

        do the names Pol Pot and Joseph Stalin ring a bell?
        an icon of Jesus and Mary is one that promotes peace and humility, to retort with one that makes a mockery of such a promotion i think is a littles insensitive, ive said it before Alfonse had no intention of insulting or demeaning anyone, but Chillnest had the intention of both.

        oh and Atsap, thanks for the recommendation, its an honour to see you hold my words in such high regard as to make a nickname for me on the site! sorry about the grammar, but you know seeing as i clearly hate you all with such a passion im typing pretty fast and it is hard to move with all the cricifixes and anti-gay signposts in here.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          No, ohaiguys, I didn’t give you a nickname. Steve of God was a missionary who favored us with numerous posts a year or two ago. What he lacked in your abundant zeal, he made up for in literacy.

          A Christian who spells crucifix CRICIFIX? Nice attempt at humor, but you are not pissed and typing fast among the CRICIFIXES and anti-gay signs; you are just an illiterate, loudmouthed jerk.

          You may consider this “a littles insensitive [sic]” or demeaning. If so, that’s exactly how I intended it.

        • Gordon_UK says:


          Bless trying to doge the point?

          Jesus and Mary is a Christian symbol and you discussed with Danimal the horrors done in Christianity’s name, but then again your not too worried about that – “I have come to terms with the fact that horrible things have been done in the name of my God” good for you.


        • Danimal says:

          You cannot definitively say what chillnests intentions were. Period.

        • ohaiguys says:

          im the one dodging the point? way to totally disregard the point i made about Stalin and Pol Pot. like ive explained so many times before, the crusades, witch hunts etc. were not motivated by correct Christian doctrine and you cant say they were. these people had it wrong and that is not Gods fault. im not going to defend the bad things my church has done so say all want about them and ill agree they were bad but God didnt tell anyone to do any of it so i dont see it as cause to attack him or not believe in him. im sure you dont attribute the Khmer Rouge or Stalinist Russia to your beliefs for the same reason.

          look Atsap, if youre too much of a coward to address any of the actual points im making and youre just going to immaturely harp on about bad grammar, maybe you should sit this one out. were all making spelling mistakes here, i havent pulled anyone up on theirs. also can i please have a nickname? im sure later down the line when soemeone else tries to argue a case for Christianity youdd rather have something that sounds a lot crazier than “Ohaiguys” when you bitch about me to them. im thinking about you here.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Dear Ohaiguys,

          Since you keep insisting that bad things like witch burning and the crusades are not God’s fault, please explain the bad things in the OT that are CLEARLY god’s fault.

          Joshua 10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.

          In Egypt the LORD killed avery first-born, including tiny innocent babes, to teach the Pharoah a lesson (i.e. The God of the Israelites is a mean, nasty son-of-a-bitch),

          The LORD’s Great Flood killed every person on earth except Noah’s family. Surely not all the little children and the old grandmas were wicked. Of course all of the above is mythology, but as a Christian, ohaiguys, you have to accept it as truth and support it.

          Those are just a few of the many examples where God killed directly or ordered the killing of innocents by others.
          An estimate of the number of people killed directly by your wrathful, ill-tempered God of the OT is 30 million. That makes Adolph Hitler look like a piker.

          So there, ohaiguys, is something for you to respond to other than my comments on your lousy grammar and spelling.

          I’ll work on a nickname for you since you said you want one.

          Looking forward to your response,
          ATSAP REVOL

        • Gordon_UK says:


          Matthew 10:34
          “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”

          Sorry you where saying something about Jesus being peaceful, not that I’m trying to make you out a liar.

          You where try to avoid my point by bring up something different.

          Fun fact for you, did you know you have something in common with Pol Pot? You both went to Catholic school. That may explain a lot! I also believe that he was a Theravada Buddhist.

          Another fun fact Stalin received a scholarship to a Georgian Orthodox seminary and did very well there but was kicked out as he could not afford his fees and was kicked out.

          And I see you didn’t respond to my other post on the 9/8/10.


  5. Danimal says:

    To try and claim that atheists are not in the minority is just ridiculous. I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic here or if you really believe that but I’ll tell you right now that atheists are in the minority. I’m glad that you don’t feel it is necessary to force christian ideals onto nonchristians but if you need an example of that happening you need look no further than the origins of this site. Otherwise just watch the news, not a week goes by where there isn’t an example of religion trying to impose it’s values or beliefs on nonmembers.

    You can pose a retort to whatever you like but you cannot definitively say what chillnests intentions were. You can try to infer what they were and qualify your statements with phrases like, “I think” or “I believe”. Unless chillnest returns to explicitly state his intentions stop trying to define his actions based on your own reactions.

    As far as comparing the atrocities of christianity to Pol Pot and Stalin, you’re missing one key link. The crusades and the Spanish inquisition were ordered and sanctioned by the christian church (which is the same as saying they were sanctioned by god himself) where as Khmer Rouge and Stalinist Russia were the work of individual governments that were later dismantled from within and without because of their crimes. To say Atheists (capital A) ordered and/or sanctioned is a falsehood.

    The FSM is not necessarily opposed to religion. Bobby’s opinion is the FSM because he created it. You are right, I am anti religion and so are a lot of people who visit this site. Then again there are a lot of people who visit this site who take a live and let live approach, and then there are others who are practicing members of other religions but agree with the origins of the FSM and find humor in what you find offensive. For you to make the claim that the individual comments of any one poster on this site represent the whole of pastafarians undermines your argument that all christians can’t be judged by the actions of catholic priests.

    Christianity is evidence based on imagination and you have yet to provide any proof to the contrary.


    • Atsap Revol says:

      Ohaiguys says he wants a nickname. I believe he thinks that “Steve-of-God” is a nickname, but that’s not so. That was the title SOG chose for himself.

      Nevertheless, I hereby proclaim a contest to formulate a nickname for ohaiguys. Entries will be judged on the basis of humor and incorrect spelling and grammar.

      Add your suggested nickname to this thread. The winner of the contest will enjoy a reserved seat in Pastafarian Paradise at the base of the Beer Volcano near the ramp from the Stripper Factory.

      Atsap Revol, Contest Judge

      • Danimal says:

        How about we give him something like YHWH where we take all the vowels out. HGYS. Then people can sub in their own vowels in to make his name whatever they want. I think this fits the judging criteria pretty well.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          That’s a good suggestion Danimal. You may be the contest winner unless other entries come in.

          It occurred to me that we should allow ohaiguys to submit a suggestion, since it’s his nickname. How about it Ohi?

          Let’s see, Danimal…HOLY GASBAG YAMMERING, uh…can anyone think of a word for the letter S?

      • Gordon_UK says:

        How about Vuvuzela? Starts of quite amusing until you realise it’s just a pointless buzzing sound.

        Either that or anagrams of ohaiguys the best being ‘you is hag’ or ‘hi gay sou’

        • Atsap Revol says:


          Good suggestions for a nickname for Ohi. All your suggestions will be entered in the contest.

          How’s the new addition to your family doing, and how’s the wife? All good I hope.

          By the way, what happened to ohaiguys? He seems to have stopped posting. Maybe his head exploded like SOG’s. We can only pray that we’ve read the last of his posts. On the other hand, he hasn’t responded to my questions about the goodness of God. Well, he was fun while he lasted.

          Pastafarian Blessings

        • Gordon_UK says:

          All good thanks mate, I vaguely remember something called sleep?

          I think Vuvuzela (AKA Ohaiguys) is waiting for his vicar to help him with his next post, I could also at this point insert pun based his vicar blowing a Vuvuzela but that would be uncalled for.


    • Zoro says:

      Well said Danimal.

      I am a practising member of another faith and have been for all of my adult life (Heathenism if your interested) and yet I am also happy to follow his great Noodleness. The FSM helps keep things in perspective and counter the religious zealots who plague our world.

      I have to say I find it utterly amazing that so many, mainly Christians it seems, find the site so offensive and feel the need to defend their god from a plate of pasta in such hate filled and intolerant ways!!!! If you are religious it should be in your heart, not your knees – try thinking and looking at other options. Be open and don’t let others fill your mind. Be prepared to change your mind.

      I am a Heathen, do I seriously believe that the world was made from the dismembered body of a huge giant slain by the gods? Do I really believe earthquakes are caused by the writhing body of Loki bound under the earth? Do I believe there is a great hall where dead followers go and drink beer all night? Do I think the gods created dwarfs to live in the earth? (why do those last two sound familiar?) No. They are metaphors, very poetic and interesting ones that just simply ‘work for me’, but metaphors nevertheless. They have cultural and historic links that suit me. Simple as that. As for teaching them in school as a real alternative creation theory…er, no.

      I find it really offensive that so many religious fanatics and nutters want to come on here and condemn us, they call us retards and want us all to burn in Hell (…that should be Hel with one l and it’s cold not hot anyway). Just get on with your lives and stop trying to run other peoples.

      Live long and pasta.

  6. Zoro says:

    Has he really gone? Maybe he’s conferring with ‘higher authorities’ on what to do about his pasta intolerance?

  7. gordon_uk says:

    Anyone in Oz hear a loud ‘popping’ sound which could account for Vuvuzela (AKA Ohaiguys) sudden disappearance?

    • Atsap Revol says:

      Yes, fellow Pastafarians, it does appear that Vuvuzela or HGYS (AKA ohaiguys) has left the buiilding. As Gordon_UK observed, ohaiguys was “more fun than a box of badgers.” While we will miss ohaiguiys’s daily 10,000 keystrokes, no doubt another Christian missionary will come along to replace him before long. Meanwhile, bask in the radiant glow of His Noodley Presence, the Creator and Master of All: the Holy FSM.

      The award for developing a suitable nickname for ohaiguys willl be shared by Danimal and Gordon_UK. Their suggestions were excellent. In Paradise, each will enjoy a reserved LazyBoy recliner, side-by-side, at the base of the Beer Volcano. The chairs will be equipped with armrests capable of holding a large stein of the sacred Communion Fluid. Furthermore, the chairs will be placed within touching distance of the conveyor belt that delivers strippers from the factory. Congratulations Danimal and Gordon!

      Let us pray that ohaiguys has found peace and relief from the mental confusion and illiteracy from which he suffers. In the Name of the Holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ramen.

      Atsap Revol, The Pastafarian Pastor

  8. ohaiguys says:

    favourable companions
    good to see you missed me so, ive had exams over the past weeks and didnt have time to pay you all a visit. i like OHGYS, you know jews and muslims remove the vowles because they believe Gods name to be too holy to be displayed in full? really exciting that youd bestow similar reverance to my name, really guys your making me blush.

    Atsap seeing as lots of stories in OT could, like you say, just be mythology it doesnt concern me too much especially considering christians take their ethical teachings from NT. but seeing as youve posed the point, these werent good people and God had given them chance after chance to change their ways. im sure if we took a visit to Sodom or Gomora we really wouldnt have considered them pleasant places. you can say what you want about OT, my faith is based on the teachings of Christ and i only acknowledge OT for its occasional purpose of foreshadowing the coming of Jesus, not too say i disagree with everything in there but im sure youll agree alot in there is outdated and often made up of pro-Jewish historical rhetoric.

    so Danimal all of a sudden you are “anti-religion”? What you said on August 3 seemed to identify yourself as quite different, which ones a lie? look. i saw some statistics in an SOR class that had of the world population something like 14% were non-religious. i get that theres a difference between being Atheistic and non-religious (that didnt include “other” by the way it was represented seperately) for your point of Christians oppressing people without religion as a minority i dont think it would be fair to only include Atheists. Christians were represented more, i think it was somewhere below 30 or 40 percent but still 14% isnt a tiny minority, sure thats in a worldwide perspective but from my viewpoint in an ever advancing world in terms of science and tolerance i dont thing the non-religious are opressed very much at all, certainly not as much nor as harshly as other social groups. A lot of this discussion has revolved around the fact that the actions of the church cannot always be directly attributed to God and to blame the contemporary church for the crusades or witch hunts is probably as off (if not more so) as blaming the current German government for the Holocaust.

    Gordon when i read that verse i see it as a caution to Christians that there will be conflict over theyre faith, and a reminder that God must always be first and foremost in their lives. i must admit it could be worded better but to say Jesus wasn’t a promoter of peace is misinformed and incorrect no matter what perspective, objective or subjective, you look at it from. just out of curiosity, if Stalin was at the school on a scholarship then how why could he not afford school fees? and Pol Pot incorporated some aspects of Theravada into his policies to justify some deviations from standard Marxism, as a Marxist he was an Athiest and millions of people were murdered in the Khmer Rouge fo having faith, just as in Stalinism, neither were religious but like i said i dont blame Atheism for these events because they were the work of corrupted individuals.

    Zoro good on you, its an interesting alternative to practice but why should i not be offended by some of the things i see on the site? like ive said before, i agree that ID should be kept out of the science class. But if you believe so strongly in evryone having rights to their own opinions then how can you condone FSM making a cop out of oranized religion? FSM sees religion and they disagree with it and put their opinion forward, how am i any different by seeing what FSM says and disagreeing with it then putting my opinion forward. its a bit of a double standard to say im not allowed to defend my faith when it is challenged. if i were you i would take a good hard look at the principles of FSM because im sure a lot of them condemn your own religion.

    sorry to dissapoint you by coming back, and if its any consolation i actually havent even been to church in the past few weeks, in fact i havent had any discussions with people from my church (or faith for that matter) about my posts. anyway, your prayers are appreciated and rest assured that im doing likewise.
    should i sign off as OHGYS or Vuvuzela? your house, you tell me.

    • Danimal says:

      It has been repeated over and over again under this post that you can have your own opinion, no one is trying to take that away from you. We will point out flaws in your reasoning, statistics, and general conduct to your fellow humans but we won’t trample on your right to sit in front of your keyboard and prove yourself to be an immature blowhard time and time again.

      As for me being a liar, I can appreciate the charity work the church does and still be anti-religion. You don’t need to believe you are scoring points for the afterlife to do good things. So if the church existed as a community support group but didn’t have any of the dogma it does now and didn’t believe that 2000 years ago a man died and then came back from the dead then I would consider that a pretty good situation. But if you’d rather put words in my mouth and call me a liar I’m sure that’s useful for the discussion too.

      For almost a month now I have corrected you when you twist peoples words and actions to fit your own argument. This series of posts had devolved from a philosophical discussion to explaining the definitions of words, and keeping you up on current positions of political and religious leaders of the world. I’ve tried to correct you on your general misconceptions of the world around you, but I am not your teacher or your parent, and I’m definitely not your own personal Jiminy Cricket. I am beginning to suspect one of two conclusions about you:

      1. You do see the holes in your own arguments and you recognize and embrace your uncouth debate strategy and continue on with it to simply annoy the members here. Your inability to grasp the simple concept of what a minority is boggles the mind.

      2. You actually are that ignorant as to be oblivious to the many things on which myself, and others have corrected you.

      Either way I’m done engaging with you until you can demonstrate your ability to be respectful and well informed. Don’t take this as me trying to stop you from expressing your opinion, by all means I hope you continue to do so and with some improvement. (Or without improvement so that I can have a good laugh) You may consider this running away or conceding your point but I have equal interest in conversing with you as I do with a fence post. Actually less because at least the fence post provides the service of keeping deer out of my garden.

      Grow up,

Leave a Reply