I hope you pay for your actions

Published January 17th, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

Wow, what a scam you have used to set yourself up with money and Im guessing fame and all the stupid bimbos and other trappings it all brings. Just remember, since there is no god or religion there is nothing wrong with killing some low life, "educated" or not (or any other act). As an exemplar of life without a God, there is nothing keeping people from acting out against others in any capacity other than the relatively obscure chance of being caught. I personally believe in God. I like to think that I am held responsible at a higher level than what man does. I do like to think there’s more. I hope you pay for your actions sooner or later in life. I’m sure you will at some point. A Morally concerned man.


I’ve become conflicted about posting hate-mails. I think there are assumptions that the Church of FSM receives hundreds of hate-mails and that most of the mail from Christians is negative. Neither of those things are true. Hate-mails are not common, and the majority of Christians who email understand our purpose is not to mock them. Most Christians who I’ve talked to see problems with organized religion and the abuses and fraud that get tied up with faith and power.

But what I hear over and over is that they feel turned away by our reactions to hate mail. They feel too many of us believe they are stupid for being religious. Even if a few of us do, I hope the Church of FSM never turns into a venue for those opinions. That’s not what this is about.

For the most part I think we do a good job of turning down the volume on our most extreme voices, and I think that’s a healthy thing. Just as Christians have a few members who will be riled enough to write nasty letters to us, there will be a few of us riled enough to respond in kind. But the majority of us are reasonable and rational.

I hope we find a way to encourage more rational religious to venture over here, and that we find a way to keep them. The Church of FSM is open to all – and that includes those who believe in another God besides the Almighty FSM.

403 Responses to “I hope you pay for your actions”

  1. Capellini says:

    I really hope Bobby gets all the fame, fortune, and bitches he’s been promised. I say he deserves at least that for teaching us all the ways of the FSM.

  2. Atsap Revol says:

    Reminds me of a sermon I once heard delivered by a Southern Baptist minister. I’ll have to paraphrase, but one of his statements went like this, “If I wasn’t a Christian, I would do all the things that non-believers do.” I couldn’t help but wonder what he would be doing if he hadn’t been saved and born again. It seemed obvious that the life of the unsaved appealed to him.

    Is this thin religious barrier all that protects us decent folks from the ravages of pious assholes who believe there can be no morality outside of their narrow, contrived boundaries?

    Atsap Revol

    • Uncommoner says:

      Actually, no. This is the thin barrier between ALL narrow-minded individuals. I’d call it “The green grass syndrome” (lol) and could apply to anyone.

  3. Reverend Marinara says:

    Just hold yourself accountable for your actions.

    • Uncommoner says:

      my favorite reply to this post.
      ((Insert “FSM equivalent of AMEN here”))

  4. Raven says:

    So the ONLY thing preventing this person from killing others is that he’s held accountable to a high power eg. the Xtian God?
    Well then im really glad he believes in God.

    All people understand the concept for right and wrong. Even if the only source of morality in our world came from the bible… MAN WROTE THE BIBLE. God didn’t chuck it down from heaven. If he did then i may have a different view point but he did.

  5. Elsa says:

    Even though I agree with a lot of the comments for this hate mail, I can’t help but fell that by ganging up on the people who send hate mail we are sinking down to their level. Is it not hurtful for them to read these posts as we tear them apart long after their arguments are dead? Can’t we just agree that they are wrong and be done with it? Is it really necessary for every one of us to take a stab at them? I think not.
    Instead of fighting fire with more fire we should accept that there ARE people that will never respect us and our choices. Yes people do terrible things because they lack the morals promoted by organized religion but deeply religious people can commit acts of horror as well. People without religious guidance can do good, so can those with it. It doesn’t take 50+ posts to establish that and repeating the same arguments over and over to (insertcurrenthate-mailersnamehere) probably won’t be more effective than one or two solid refutations.
    Nuff Said
    Peace, Love, Pasta

    • Atsap Revol says:


      “Is it not hurtful for them to read these posts as we tear them apart long after their argument is dead?”

      Hope so.

    • Noodlity says:

      This ‘ganging up’ is more like practice, for occasions where the stakes of a religious debate will be higher. Debunking hate-mail, while fun as it is, also lets us share and compare our methods, and learn from one another. Even the most solid refutation can use some improvement from time to time.

      • Keith says:

        Yeah! just like any battle, you have to challenge all sorts of opponents to improve your technique. Even if you occasionally have to descend to the hatemailer’s level of “My god is better than your god”, it’s good practice. Olympic athletes still go back to the basics as should Olympic Atheists.

        • Uncommoner says:

          It’s a shame there are none here lol

    • Danimal says:

      Thank you Elsa for pointing out our bad manners. You’ve actually hit on one of the most positive aspects of this community: The self correction afforded by its most responsible members. That being said I want to second Noodilty in that this is a place where people can learn to defend themselves from the badgering of the religious more effectively. Does it hurt the hatemailers feelings when we respond in waves to their BS? I should think it does, but I don’t cry for them because they came here insulting and threatening and so if we are going to sharpen our wit on anyone it should be these trash spewing idiots.

      Before becoming a pastafarian, I didn’t worship any god(s) and wasn’t sure if I believed in the existence of any. However, I wasn’t able to express myself well or defend myself when confronted with threats of damnation. I was ignorant to Pascal’s Wager and what a “No True Scotsman” argument was. Now I am much more articulate when it comes to defending myself and while you’re right that some people are never going to respect us, I now at least have a boatload more respect for myself thanks to these week long hatemailer flames that have refined my point of view. It also makes me smile when I see row after row of posts from so many different people calling out these idiots. It reminds me that I’m not alone.

      Don’t get me wrong I’m not advocating that pastafarians run out and badger xtians about their invisible friend. Nor do I think we are all minding our own business and then are slammed by hatemailers out of the blue and for no reason. I understand we have rallied under this banner and that it attracts a certain element of the religious. I’d say were are analogous to a pitcher plant. We subtly invite the insects by presenting what they think is an easy target (I mean a flying spaghetti monster IS ridiculous) but make no mistake the biggest injuries these fundies receive are self-inflicted.

      • TiltedHorizon says:

        Kudos to Danimal for pointing out the ‘training’ aspect of these discussions. I can’t help but feel David Silverman would have benefited from this type of public debate and not missed the opportunity which O’Reilly presented in ‘Tides are proof of god’.

        • Pastagnostic says:

          I think that if Mr. Silverman could have gotten a word in edgwise he would have done fine.

      • Uncommoner says:

        As a hardcore Christian, taking a logical and very rational approach to my faith, AND a supporter for the FSM (and it’s core values), I feel I must speak. The FSM is a banner of Free-thinking and anti-extremism, NOT atheism and anti-christianity. In the Sunday School class which I teach, we do NOT use the bible to refer to ANYTHING that can be logically explained, and that eventuates to everything. So it’s only fair that THIS also remain a place of logic, not barbarism; that goes for Christians as well.
        Hatemail is what it is. Responding with foolish backwards insult is not intellectual spear-chucking, it’s unintelligent rock-throwing. I suggest promoting open-mindedness in this community, as opposed to anti-religion.

        • Dr. Astronomer says:

          “we do NOT use the bible to refer to ANYTHING that can be logically explained, and that eventuates to everything.”

          Ok, now I’m curious. If you don’t use the bible in Sunday school class, what do you use? If you are not teaching the word of the bible (i.e. the word of God), what is the point of the bible? I don’t see how a Christian church not using the bible works. I understand not taking it literally, but not using it at all? What is the foundation then?

        • Uncommoner says:

          @ Dr. Astronomer

          My Sunday school group comprises of college age students, and the purpose of the Sunday School is to realize where you are in life. One of the core lessons in class is if you are to be logical in the rest of your life (@college), then you are being unjust when you come to church and just believe because the pastor says so. Sunday School is a time of reflection with open minds, while mast is where we delve into the bible with open hearts.

          So to answer your questions:
          What do you use?
          Philosophy, Theology, respect for natural sciences, natural law, and of course citations.

          if you are not teaching the word of the bible, what is the point of the bible?
          That is the JOB of the pastor or someone certified in Ministry. Again the purpose of the CLASS is to understand that at your point in life, it is best to logical, and therefore choose your own path. I as inclined to say that my class remains faithful.

          I understand not taking it literally, but not using it at all?
          Our motto “is believe and let believe”
          we have yet to come up with a vision, but during class, we all seem to agree that Christianity, throughout the ages, has been contested and scrutinized very respectfully. So we do not simply view it as a “Defense against the Dark Arts” class (don’t mind the Harry Potter pun), it is more of an eye opener which many of them have faced in their new academic surroundings. The class actually started with one question:
          “How do you remain Christian at a non-Christian college?” To which many pastors would answer “Transfer,” which, to me, is an attempt to avoid the real question.

          What is the foundation?
          The answer to this would be about the same answer as your first question. I got the OK from the Pastor to open the class, even after showing him what it is that we were planning to do in it. He thought the same thing as you are probably thinking: so if you do not use faith, then what do use? Here, we ground ourselves in to a more recognizable (to the students) idea: logic. We take on Christianity with great scrutiny, and realize that we can’t answer that with an experiential point-of-view (ie.: I know God, because I‘ve seen him.) This, especially to College students, is a mockery of what they’re being taught in school. So the foundation is not in the experiential point-of-view of Christianity (and some times religion in general), but in the open-minded, questioning point-of-view; this is a point at which they already are, but are, of course, afraid to bring them up during mast. They seek to be open-minded and that is respectable and normal. I’ll go into it with more detail, if the need arises.

        • Danimal says:

          Before you ask *how* to remain christian have you answered *why* you are christians?

        • Uncommoner says:

          Why are you a Christian?

          A very crafty question. (much respect to you, sir).
          I was asked this at the first congregation of my class, and I may have confused my students with the answer, because they probably were not as educated in the question itself as you are. I am Christian simply because the evidence is there. If the question was of my Christian Origin, I would say I am not entirely sure, but it was somewhere between the scorn I faced as a high schooler about not being christian (i went to a public school), and then the scorn I faced during my latter high school years for for becoming a Christian(same school). It is at this point that I, myself (without my parents’ consent, who were NOT religious) decided to take a logical stand against ANYONE who opposes others because of their beliefs or lack therof. Even the champions of Christianity and Atheism know that there is not only disagreement but animosity between the two, especially. In short, I am Christian, first because I know God on a personal basis, and second because there is something about being faithful and logical at the same time that satisfies my self-actualization.

        • Danimal says:

          What evidence?

        • Uncommoner says:

          I am going to switch the reigns over to you and ask what of the evidence against it?

        • Danimal says:

          So you’re going to dodge the question in other words. Let me expand my first questions. Why do you worship Jesus Christ and not Horus?

        • Uncommoner says:

          To answer the vague ‘evidence’ question, the evidence is in the bible. If I were to answer your question we, of course, would need to establish the bible as a profitable, accountable, historical reference; which would require a VERY lengthy debate, if you are truly up for it.

          Why do you worship Jesus Christ and not Horus?
          If this is a question about Christianity(Faith of Jerusalem) vs. Religions of Ancient Egypt, I would answer that, in this specific question, is that there are accounts in the bible that the Christ was regarded as an actual person, while Horus REMAINS in the realm of unempirical.
          If this is a question about Christianity vs. all other religions, I would look more deeply at not only the teachings of each, but also the path to salvation that occurs in each.
          It can be said that in, for example Buddhism that if you are good, you can achieve nirvana, or, that the ultimate goal of Buddhism can be reached by mere human efforts.
          I remain Christian simply because, although my faith shares a great afterlife with other faiths, I believe that human efforts are only a fraction of what is needed to transcend.
          It requires a miracle, that God extends to us, and meets us at our level, and no matter how hard we try we simply cannot get to where he is on our own.
          The Christian version of salvation is to acknowledge that God sent his only son, his son died, and, through miracle, was ressurected.

          (I created a new line for each sentence, in an effort as not to lead you on, so feel free to comment on each.)

        • Noodlity says:

          By that account, Uncommoner, why are you not Muslim? Islam also emphasizes the role of Allah in reaching heaven. It also wisely avoids blaming people for the sins of their fathers, thus eliminating the need for a self-sacrificing savior/demigod figure. From a neutral standpoint, I’d say it’s much more refined that Xianity.

          I also have to ask how you’ve reached the conclusion that Xianity stands up to scrutiny so well. It has yet to show significant influence or growth in countries where it hasn’t been introduced by force (think Southeastern Asia), so I don’t think its philosophy is all that enticing. It’s been steadily losing adherents, especially in First World countries with greater access to education and differing opinions.

          So really, what’s so special about it?

        • gordon_uk says:


          Well it’s nice to have a Christian post that does not question our morality, threaten us with hell, etc…..

          What I have always found curious about theists is their belief without evidence, their main argument always comes back to the old chestnut ‘well you can’t prove otherwise’ or they refer to religious text which have so many holes it them that if it was a legal document even Judge Judy would though it out.

          Now take Christianity for example, it is an evolution Judaism based on the additional teaching Jesus with their main religious text being the NT. Now the oldest version is 350 years after the fact (Codex Sinaiticus) and was written by four different scribes in Greek (not a good start for an accurate account) it was the first time all of the all of the ‘accepted’ Christian texts where placed in the one document (I wonder what texts ended up on the cutting room floor). Also during the production of the Codex each of the scribes corrected their own work and one of them corrected and rewrote parts by another. These corrections contain many significant alterations and, together with further extensive corrections undertaken probably in the seventh century (now what did they know another 350 years later that they did not know before?).

          So to go back to Danimal’s original question, why are you Christian rather then as Noodlity asks Muslim? (much better document then Christianity)


        • gordon_uk says:

          Sorry just noticed the typos, it late here in the UK!!

        • plumberbob says:

          @ Uncommoner,

          Danimal has asked you for evidence that you had inferred that you had, and you parried the request with a reference to a bible that needed a complex debate. The bible, being just a combination of the Hebrew scripture and writings of the Christian Greek community, is simply a piece of literature. If you are conversant with the Julius Wellhausen documentary hypothesis, I’m prepared to discuss Hebrew scripture with you. That covers the authors, their politics, their economic position, and the time period of the writing.


    • tekHedd says:

      “Is it not hurtful for them to read these posts as we tear them apart long after their arguments are dead?”

      No, it is not. OK, maybe it is hurtful to the person who sent a letter full of death threats thinly veiled as an attempt to convert us to Christianity, but that seems irrelevant. Discussing the flaws in this letter only helps heal and strengthen the Pastafarian community.

      On the other hand, if your main point is “I wish people would read all the comments before posting their own,” I have to agree with you. What would a pirate do?

    • Elsa says:

      Noodlity, Keith, Danimal, TiltedHorizon and TekHedd I agree that learning to debate, to defend ourselves is one of the most important skills we can learn in this life, but there is a line between healthy argumentation and unnecessarily insulting the people who disagree with us. I fell some of us-although thankfully not all-have crossed that line. “Debunking hate-mail” can only get us so far especially when there is no one here to counter our arguments. Studying logic and rhetoric and philosophy can bring us further but the best thing we can do is find a willing opponent who can respond with their own logic and opinions. I am sure that any of us could find someone willing to sit down, in person or on the internet, and talk things out with us without either party relying on insults and threats.
      And lets not pretend that we don’t give as good as we get. In this thread we have called Joseph “bastard”, “usual neanderthal christian”, “spineless bigot”, “twisted a-hole”, “violent thickhead”, “fundie”, “hypocrite” and my personal favorite “Dickhead”. Even if it’s true that he is all of these things is it NECESSARY for us to use that sort of language. Aren’t we trying to prove that we are better than that? I know that not all of us are like that but the few who don’t refrain from using such profanities could ruin this for all of us. The people who think we are immoral will see the lapses in judgment and be reaffirmed of their convictions against us. Yes they invite wrath upon themselves but we only incriminate ourselves by responding responding with such disrespect.
      I’d like to quote Bobby on his recent post “An Emerging Trend?”
      “There are several occurrences where a curious Christian ventured here and engaged us for a while only to be stomped on en masse for their thoughts. I hate that. There is this idea, I think, that being correct is enough, that if we rip apart all their arguments thoroughly enough they will see the error of their ways and then … I don’t know, renounce their foolish beliefs and join up? Except I don’t think it works that way. There is that quote … “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.” I think there is a bigger picture and if we truly want to help someone along a path of Reason, it starts with an uncommon level of respect.”
      Bobby is right. We can’t expect these people to respect and/or accept our ideas just because we tell them they’re wrong. We need to prove them wrong with our actions. We need to show them that we are good people capable of the same level of morality that they claim to have.

      Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t counter the hate-mail, not doing so would be worse than this, but instead of insulting we should show respect, if not for the person’s ideas then at least for the fact that they are a person. Counter their arguments but don’t assume that just because the person disagrees with us that they are less of a person or that they deserve to be trampled on.

      And on that note I would like to apologize to the people who read this who aren’t the ones throwing insults. I love the idea of Pastafarianism but I don’t want us to become just another organization that can’t be respected because we don’t let anyone else get a word in without tearing them to pieces.


      • Atsap Revol says:


        Refrain from profanity? What do you want to do, take all the fun out of flaming ignorant bastards, neanderthal Christians,spineless bigots, twisted assholes, violent thickheads, and dickheads? George Carlin didn’t refrain from using a choice vocabulary in his monologues about religion. Audiences loved George.

        Asap Revol, Cranky Old Fart

      • Noodlity says:

        Sorry, Elsa, but I have to go with Atsap Revol on this one.

        I thoroughly approve the use of profanity in religious debates, not only because it’s more entertaining, but because it really drives the point that religion and its followers are no longer immune to any kind of scrutiny, that they’re not inherently entitled to any respect, unless they have actually earned it. And most horribly – that while we can and readily do oppose and rebuke their arguments, in reality, we no longer need to.


      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        While I usually try to refrain from name-calling, I stand by my “twisted a-hole” assessment, Elsa. I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

        • Drained and Washed Clean says:

          I stand by dickhead as well. Ditto on the rest of it.

      • Rev Toni Rigatoni says:

        Elsa, I don’t know how long you have been involved in this site or to what extent, but if you scan previous threads you will see that most Pastafarians here will respond in kind to the type of ‘concerned criticism’ they are subjected to. If someone comes here and flames us why should we not react in kind? I will admit that occasionally overreaction does happen and I am personally sad about that because you’re right, it does put us in a bad light. Often however, these regretable incidents are made by hit and run visitors to this site; look at the names of the posters of these replies and you will find that in many cases they are not regular contributors, nevertheless, no one should have the right to insult or threaten anyone without expecting a reaction. I, and many more regulars would welcome a post that is polite, intelligently presented and inviting discussion and debate. You will find such threads here if you look, but sadly they are few and far between and you will find that the majority of replies are polite, ok they may not be conciliatory but that’s the nature of debate. Yes, the regulars here do flame posters of hate mail but not unreasonably so. I’ve said it before and I will say it again, if christians, or any other for that matter wish to engage in reasoned , intelligent debate we would love to hear from them, but if they come here spoiling for a fight they will get one.

        Sauce be with you,

        The Reverand

      • Danimal says:

        Just as the quality of the original hate-mailers post reflects on their character so to does the qualify of the responses by pastafarians. I keep that in mind when I post responses and I would encourage everyone to consider that before hitting “submit comment” as well.

        I don’t NEED to insult hate-mailers because their threats, poor logic, incomprehensible spelling and grammar, and general lack of respect for other people do that for me. I think the language you take exception to is not uncalled for when used in moderation or when used correctly. He may not be born out of wedlock (bastard) and I doubt he has male genitalia on top of his neck (dickhead) but otherwise I think everything else describes him pretty well.

        You said yourself, “…there ARE people that will never respect us and our choices.” and I think you are correct. I’m not concerned with them or what they think but as I said I’m am concerned with flushing out their hypocritical arguments so others can see how to break down similar arguments. In turn others point out all the holes they see in a post and I catch things I miss. In short, it isn’t the person I’m going after, just their flawed logic. However, If the hate-mailer returns and continues to post garbage (see Proud to be a Christain as a recent example) I’ll engage in ad hominem attacks. By the time I stoop to their level it is already clear rational discussion is out the window and my goal is to drive poster away as they have nothing to offer. My aim is to identify people who need to think before they speak (or post) and encourage that behavior. If a poster is polite I’ll thank them and then ask them about a relevant contradiction in their religion as a way of starting them down the same path that led me to being an atheist and if they post crap I flame their argument and eventually them if they keep it up. I like to call it: The Carrot and the Stick method.

        Finally and most important to me Elsa I want to say that I highly value your point of view on the subject of our responses. Your aims are noble in attempting to encourage everyone to respect their fellow humans and I applaud your for it and I sincerely hope you continue to add to the discussion. While it appears the general consensus is that our responses are not out of line I hope everybody considers what you have to say when posting a reply.
        Thank you,

    • JamesL says:

      Fuck peace! Peace is fer dem commie bastards. We need to bomb the fuck out of everyone we disagree with!

  6. He Who Doubts says:

    What possible response could any of us give to Joseph, that would be the inspirational eye opener to change his mind about theism? This is a guy who tried to use a classic ethics based attack on a secular movement, without first watching the videos, reading the blogs, or hearing the debates which already have debunked his point. I could have a more productive discussion with my dinning room table than I could with the “Morally Concerned Man.”

  7. Nowis says:

    I wonder how Joseph regards buddhists? They don’t have a god in the christian sense – does that mean they have just half a moral? Or are they completely amoral because they´re not christian? And therefore more prone to killing or acting out? Because in that case I better start looking out for Dalai lama…

    • Keith says:

      Well, I hate to admit it but there have been plenty of Buddhists who have killed, raped and stolen in the past. Of course, as with Christians who do the same thing you may well argue that they are not true Buddhists in spirit and you’d be right. The major difference is that in Buddhism you can suffer for your actions in the next life until you balance things out. Of course, some would say that this would tie in with the “no true Scotsman” argument, except I’m just stating a fact and not trying to defend anyone.

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        Almost all of the Khmer Rouge were Buddhists.

        • Keith says:

          I would not have thought that likely. I know that, as with Christians, there is a lot of in fighting among Buddhists but I do know that anyone who was considered religious or an intellectual was targetted by the Khmer Rouge. Buddhist monks were certainly on their hit list.

  8. Brian Fritzen says:

    Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that you are right, Mr. Morality… How are you going to feel, when you get to the proverbial pearly gates and god whips out his laptop and shows him your wonderfully judgmental post and says to you, “I said, DO NOT JuDGE.”

    Your post is FAIL. Lulz.

    My original response to this was: “Again we gotta do this?” But, if you were so much morally superior to us, then why are you passing judgment and using thinly veiled threats? Did we threaten you? Did we claim you are immoral? Did we say you molest children? Or hijack airplanes and crash them into buildings? or commit genocide? or burn people at the stake? or kill hundreds of thousands of women in children to retake the holy land? or claim god has given you providence to kill an entire people who lived freely upon the land? Did we claim you hold people in bondage? and trade them as if they were goods and slaughter nearly 13 million of these people during the slave trade? or claim you did any of the things found on atheistsnever.com? or claim you hate someone based on skin color or religion? Until we do, your argument has no merit.

    See, all of these things were done in the name of religion. None of them sound very moral to me. So, if this is the morality of which you preach, then I would say, yes, I reject your morals.

Leave a Reply