I spent a while thinking (hate-mail)

Published June 14th, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

I spent a while thinking of a good reply to this, without sounding like some sort of inbred hick or perhaps maybe to get your attention. However, I realize that there pretty much is no way for that to happen, if you put this in your hate-mail section, I’ll probably be mocked just as much as the next guy, who put the stupid comment about how you could never buy a pirate ship. I’m OK with that, I just wish people will actually think about what I have to say rather then ignorantly mocking what I believe personally. Whatever may happen, I don’t really mind, except that I cannot bring myself to be silent on this issue.

I am a Christian, whatever you may think about me, or absurd assumptions you may have about what I look like, think like, or speak like, realize this, I think all beliefs should be treated with equality. Atheism, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Agonist, Voodoo, whatever, I don’t care, if you believe that you are correct, then you have every right in the world to believe that with all your heart, and nobody should force you to believe what they believe. Now I also believe in open criticism of any of these religions, meaning your Pastafarian view that openly mocks religion. However, it is also my right to criticize the criticism, meaning though while I believe it is your right to mock, harass, and generally make religious persons miserable, I don’t believe it is morally right.

Atheism is a belief just as much as Christianity. Say whatever you want about facts and how religion is stupid and all those who practice it are all idiots, but it still comes down to the fundamental truth that you must believe this to be more true over the other option. I am again, completely fine with that, and that is why I love America so much, because we CAN believe differently then one another, and still live peacefully (to a degree) together. However, mocking is not the right way to go about arguing your belief.
By the way, here is the definition of mocking:

1. Tease or laugh at in a scornful or contemptuous manner.

2. Make (something) seem laughably unreal or impossible.

To laugh at someone else’s belief that they dedicate their lives to is not funny or humorous, but I believe is rather childish and immature. This is the main reason why I would much rather sit down calmly with an atheist and have a rational discussion about each other’s beliefs, instead of smacking them in the face with a bible, and shouting how they are going to hell for not believing the undeniable truth that is the bible, or worse, calling their belief idiotic and getting my group of friends together and laughing and pointing in his face.

Of course there are people that do this, hence, you, and there will always be people like you. My job is try to convince you to be rational and discuss each others view points.

I could never put myself in your mindset and read this the same way through your eyes. To you, I just look like another idiot who took this seriously and decided to write a concerned letter and waste his time trying to teach you to be respectful, but the truth is, writing this helps me put my thoughts in order anyways.

If you do have one ounce of thought for my beliefs, at least view this letter with respect, and try to think about what I am thinking when I read this:


What I am thinking is that the joke has gone to far. Of course this letter asks for intelligent discussion, and that seems to have never existed in your website, so before I go, let my put it in your language.

Fuck you, and lay off religion asshole.


2,163 Responses to “I spent a while thinking (hate-mail)”

1 44 45 46 47 48 78
  1. I Mock the Mockery says:

    Aw, he was doing so well until the last paragraph and then he done blowed himself and his argument to smithereens. Poor teenage angster. He will never know the Truth of His Noodly Appendage.

    • Blake says:

      I was about to post the same thing. He was doing so well in trying to relay a civil and intellectual message until he fell into a drunken rage at the end.

  2. Arkaeon says:

    Poster does not realize that many people who are part of this movement do indeed understand his religion quite thoroughly, probably moreso than he, and we disclaim not the metaphors that are positive, but rather the destructive and tyrannical ends for which the whole has been utilized throughout its history, through selective interpretation and application. This continues to this day.

    Poster implicates himself as uneducated in that he refers to “the undeniable truth that is the bible” as if it were a scientifically, rationally, and historically accurate portrayal of actual facts and events. Those who really understand the Bible realize that it is representative of the placees and periods in which its books were written; but that the various ignorances and errors of the authors on many subjects, as well the deliberately metaphorical or symbolic rather than historical content of major sections, means that the one thing you can not rationally do with the Bible is to take it literally. It is not suited, nor was it intended, to be taken literally. This is understood almost everywhere but in USA protestant denominations.

    Even so, the Pastafarian movement does not categorically condemn the Bible or christianity as a faith in essence or in practice. Pastafarians, as a political and social force, does offer resistance and rebuttal to the attack by fundamentalists on anyone who does not agree with their assertions. It is certain factions of christians who attack and hold other beliefs in contempt, using both political and violent force against individuals and the educational system to try to institutionalize their highly erroneous dogma as the law and classroom of the land, quite contrary to Constitutional guarantees that such theocracy may not be committed within the Union.

    These same fundamentalist factions, when stopped by constitutional courts from committing tyranny upon their fellow citizens and subverting the USA into a narcissistic theocracy, who cry “foul” and complain that their “right” to force their irrational sentiments on others has been abridged. This right does not exist. No one has the right to enforce their religious irrationalities on others, and it has wasted great resources of many individuals and jurisdictions to prevent and repel fundamentalist aggression.

    If poster senses mockery of his “beliefs” it is because those beliefs are such obvious fabrications and inventions of uneducated or underhanded men who would return humanity to a cosmology and ignorance befitting the second millenium bce. It is the right of free men to resist such tyranny through legal, rational, and humorous means, and to be free of a state-established religion that would be enforced by the same intimidation, lies, and violence that are being used to try to establish it. Dear Hateful Poster, it will NOT have gone on nearly long enough until YOUR faction stops trying to drive us all back into the Dark Ages. YOU are the aggressor, and we are the defense of rational minds.

    I am a born-again christian since 1981, as well as a scientific thinker. I know the difference between living a life of grace while seeking the Mind of Eternal Truth, and living a life of trying to subjugate the world into the hands of despotic political powermongers who seek their own worldly benefit above that grace or any real truth. Jesus was a healer and enlightener, but modern fundamentalists are destroyers of peace and haters of verifiable facts. In both comparisons, I choose the former. How about you?

    • Atsap Revol says:

      Well done, ARKAEON. I appreciated reading a post by a thoughtful Christian. You clearly described the dark forces of Evangelical Protestantism. You are a breath of fresh air!

      Atsap Revol

    • John D. says:


      That rocked. Well said.

  3. Malloon says:

    Dear Austin,

    (If you still read the answers you get. If you don’t for the sheer amount of them, I won’t blame you).

    I think you missed the point of Pastafarism completely. It’s not there to mock religion, it is there to put the people into place who try to put their religion into the public and have everyone treat it like it’s… well, holy. You see, religion is a personal thing, which is allowed to be expressed, as long as it isn’t shoved down the throats of people who don’t want it.

    Each person’s religion is different to the next person’s religion. Sure, they may both call themselves Tetretecian Pluoairians (I made one up as not to offend anyone), but if they each wrote down (or said or recorded; it doesn’t matter) every little thing about their belief, there would be differences. How a belief (or non-belief) is expressed depends on the person’s personality, not the belief itself. An Atheist (like me), a christian, a muslim, a buddist, an Agnositic e.t.c. might all express their way of thinking in different ways, or the same ways, or not at all. It depends on the person, not the religion.

    Sure, some religions are known for being notorious (not pointing any fingers). But that’s because of the message the PEOPLE in the religion give out. It is people who justify their faults with religion, not religion that actualy justifys their faults. It’s not like, “Hey, I’ll join this religion. What? I have to sacrifice people? Oh well, the religion tells me to, so I’d better do it.” It’s: ” Hey, this religion sacrifices people who think differently. What fun!” (Sorry for the satire, but I’d rather not quote anything, if I even knew where to quote it from).

    That does mean that there are bad pastafarians out there, just like there are bad christians, bad atheists, bad muslims, bad buddists e.t.c. But don’t put down the religion, put down the people’s thoughts, if they are wrong. (I define wrong by being hurtfull or dangerous to the larger percentage of people, by the way).

    The best example I can give here is that I read that we tease the occasional troll. It’s not done to mock their religion, but to mock them for being rude, obnoxious, ignorant, or petty. (I am sorely temped to mock you for your last line, I am afraid to say. I still can’t decide if those were your true colours or just a moment of emotion which bubbled to the surface.)

    Now, to that boy you inserted a link to:

    1. If the school allowed any other religious act on its grounds then the ban was probably incorrect. (I said probably. Read on)
    2. If the school had made any overly religious act before, then the ban was way out of line.
    3. If the pirate garb was disruptive, and if 2. didn’t aply, then the ban was correct, because then it would have made the school uncomfortable to learn in and therefore given him a religious privilege, which is something no one wants (except the people the members of this religion are supposedly against. (I said supposedly not as an insult, but as not to define someone else, which is more insulting) If this is true, he as an individual didn’t understand the principles of the religion he joined, as I have discussed beforehand. In that case he is in the fault, not the entire Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster).

    This parody-religion even gives people who try to force their religion on others, a chance to leave with their honour intact, by way of humour; “Your right mate, I see what I did wrong now. What a strange thing to do, indeed. By the way, I like your eyepatch.” “Not a problem mate, as long as you realised it. Oh, this old thing?”

    See what I mean? The problem is, is that humans don’t like changing their minds about something. Anything. Especially about something as important to their emotions as religion.

    I just hope you quit swearing. We don’t do that here.



  4. Jim Morgan says:

    I don’t care for the fact that you and lots of other “Christians” insist on projecting your faults on us by claiming atheism is a religion.

    And Christianity has to be the world champion (or, if Islam has passed it, a very close runner-up) in disrespect and belittling atheism and atheists, and religions as well.

    If you don’t like it, try writing to the fundamentalist websites and suggesting they stop the disrespect and the attempts to use the law to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

  5. seboyle says:

    “I spent a while thinking of a good reply to this, without sounding like some sort of inbred hick… However, I realize that there pretty much is no way for that to happen…”

  6. FuzzyToast says:

    Atheism is exactly what it sounds like a- (meaning without, not, or lacking) -theism (religious beliefs).

    This is the problem with some theists trying to understand atheists. They can’t imagine not having a belief system, therefore claiming it is the belief in no god when in reality, it is just the lack of a belief in god.

    It’s like comparing darkness and light. Darkness is just the absence of light.

  7. nick earnst says:

    “I don’t know, never read or will read the bible for the waste of paper that it is ” Wow. “I don’t know what it is, but I know it’s wrong.” Now that’s faith. I know a true believer who says similar about Marx and Hitchens. Looks like you have, indeed, created a (Flying Spaghetti) Monster. Such folk should be sprinkled with Holy Parmesan in the hope that this blessing will cause them to see the light, that it is the curse of the tolerant that they must tolerate the intolerant.

  8. Peter says:

    I did read the bible. It has no more relevant information than any other fairly tale. And the god that it describes is no different to our graceful Flying Spaghetti Monster. Except that FSM is way more cool. And that nobody died or killed for the the great FSM.

1 44 45 46 47 48 78

Leave a Reply