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.


2,161 Responses to “I spent a while thinking (hate-mail)”

1 60 61 62 63 64 78
  1. Verney says:

    Religion is defined as the belief in, and worship, of a superhuman controlling power and atheism is precisely not that. So I fail to see how atheism can be called a religion.

    • scientist says:

      Have to take on to this since your reply was polite. I also don’t think atheism is a religion, but religion-like. Let me explain.

      Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity, but in larger context atheism implies a belief in a scientific meta-paradigm. Such a belief can be for example that one day science could explain everything in the universe. This makes science “greater” than any individual or even a nation, hence superhuman – leading to scientism which would be a pseudo-religion. We can juggle this which ever way, and you can avoid self-reflecting ad infinitum, but the point is that atheism is not belief-free stance, contrary to what atheists often think. I’m ex-atheist myself for 30 years and it was exactly the blindness of atheism to its own nature that turned me away – how could a system that is unable to reflect itself truthfully could guide me to truth? I’ve found more solid foundation since in esoteric christianity (not mainstream, phew) and other esoteric affiliations.

      And what comes to these pastafarians, it’s clear that members are atheists who want to provoke a conflict. In my opinion, you show bad manners and zero intellectual muscle. If this is humour, its not funny, if its a provocation it’s only working against atheism. Nobody will remember these folks in 100 years. Poor caricatures of human beings.

      • John Luo says:

        There are a thousand and one ways to change minds. You can intellectually discuss them (you seem in favor of that), use humor, use anger and rant etc. Different people prefer different methods. While I agree that some measure of reason and intellect is required, I do think people need to be mentally prepared in order to accept reason, one of the ways to guide a person to reason is with humor and thought provoking, even offensive ideas.

        “Provoking conflict” suggests that some measure of harm can be done. What are Pastafarians doing except speaking and exchanging about ideas? They may be thought provoking and even offensive ideas, but speaking freely and taking offense is a freedom afforded to everyone.

        We aren’t trying to legislate laws that discriminate against certain groups of people just because our religion says it’s evil, we aren’t trying to force one kind of religious thought inside a science classroom and to put them on equal ground, We aren’t trying to legislate anti-abortion laws because our religion feels it’s evil, we aren’t trying to stop people who love each other from marrying and getting state benefits.

        These are the things a certain religious group have been trying to do and actively support. These are things that will actually harm peoples’ lives; and it’s definitely not on equal ground with the intellectual harm caused by offensive thought. One can choose not to listen to the messages Pasatafarian’s preach, but one cannot choose to avoid the country’s law.

      • Soma Craig says:

        “atheism implies a belief in a scientific meta-paradigm”
        No, it doesn’t. “for example that one day science could explain everything in the universe. This makes science “greater” than any individual or even a nation, hence superhuman.” The same could be said of any methodology, and it would be just as false. Science is a process to discern information, not an existential force or power.

        Computers can already process information much faster than humans, but we would scarce call them “super-human” and certainly (I hope) not form a religion around them. That said, atheism is independent of religion. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God, and while many acclaimed Pastafarians are atheists it does not mean that they are promoting atheism by scoffing at religion.

        Say what you want about Pastafarians. I think they’re making a good point and it needs to be considered. But that’s my opinion from my viewpoint, and an opinion is not objective. Atheism is not a viewpoint, it’s a belief. The belief that there is no god is independent of science. God cannot be demonstrated (or at least has yet to be) and is therefore not scientific. It makes sense then that those who apply the scientific method would become atheists. But science itself is not atheistic, superhuman, or a controlling power.

        I suppose one might use the body of knowledge ascertained through science to control people by attributing facts to superhuman power and a belief/worship of that body of knowledge could commence. But science would be, at best, a catalyst for such a religion as it is for anyone. And those of us who put our beliefs through the scientific method (and have come to atheism and/or agnosticism because of it) would probably find such a religion to be ridiculous. Nobody worships science. We just apply the scientific method to our beliefs. And we only do that because it makes sense to do so. Science is the most faultless catalyst for discerning fact from fiction we can come up with. Human error can lead to incorrectness, but science is the means we use to correct those errors too.

        If science were to ever point exclusively to a religion, it would be because that religion is so demonstrably correct that it’s objectively foolish to not personally exclusively accept that religious dogma as fact. In other words, God himself would have to come down and not only explain everything, but demonstrate everything in our reality.

        And even then, it would only be a theory ;P

        • Keith says:

          Sorry to pick you up on something SC: atheism is not a belief in no god or gods but a lack of a belief in any god or gods. At the risk of wearing out some overly used examples, baldness is not a hair colour and not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

        • Pete Byrdie says:

          Keith (and probably the entire Pastafarian community) and I disagree as to whether atheism is a belief. I think atheism is a belief that God or gods do not exist, and I don’t think the metaphors used by Keith bear on that. However, it’s pointless semantics. God is so unlike anything seen in the Universe, is so logically unlikely, and is supported by no evidence, that to say one believes God doesn’t exist or to say one doesn’t believe he does amounts to much the same; sensible, logical positions on the likelihood of God’s existence.

  2. Reverend Noodle says:

    I have always wondered if when you go to heaven or hell, do you wear clothes? Where do the cloths come from and who makes them? Are the people that make the cloths in a union? Are the cloths worn in hell fireproof?

    • Keith says:

      That used to be a common topic of discussion among spiritualists. Other common topics were: do people have sex in the afterlife and if people remarried, were they stuck with more than one spouse? Some said that being spiritual beings they had no real form or sex drive so modesty was unnecessary and that the dead were beyond such earthly feelings as relationships. Others just played the “imponderable” card and thought no more about it. Presumably people in hell would have other things on their minds.

      • Atsap Revol says:

        That’s why Pastafarian Paradise beats the heavens and hells of other religions. Gathering at the base of the beer volcano, dressing in pirate garb, and watching the strippers beats an eternity of ass-kissing worship in heaven or deep-fat frying in hell. The concept of a hell where souls spend eternity in tortured agony is sick. But it has been very effective in boosting church membership and financial contributions.

        Atsap Revol, The Pastafarian Prelate

    • JAJAJAJAJA says:

      “I am a Christian … believe it is your right to mock, harass, and generally make religious persons miserable, I don’t believe it is morally right…. Fuck you, and lay off religion asshole” – Sincerely, Austin

      jajajajajajajaja Good “brother” Austin, show your colors! Ps: read your bible, (Mark, Luke) it says there that you should feel joy when been mock!! lol

    • JAJAJAJAJA says:

      Good one!! lol

  3. Hay Day Hack 2014 says:

    This website truly has all of the information I needed concerning this subject and didn’t know who to ask.

    Feel free to surf to my homepage; Hay Day Hack 2014

    • Rev.Stu says:

      Your video was removed from You Tube for a violation, sounds more cool somehow, send it to the e-mail address provided on my web site http://www.theecod.org. If we like it we can give it a home on our FRIENDS page.

  4. steve e abraham says:

    Why should all beliefs be treated equally? Should the christian or jewish belief be treated on the same level as the beliefs of Charles Manson? Doesn’t civilization have the right to evaluate and say some beliefs are damaging, cruel, and just wrong! If one person believes the bible is literally true, and a second person believes the bible was written by several people and is fiction, how could both of these beliefs be treated equally? If one person believes slavery is wrong, and a second person believes slavery is ok, how could both of these beliefs be treated equally? These are the reasons why we have science and critical thinking! We can look at two opposite beliefs, and evaluate and see which one has more probability of being true and being beneficial to society. A belief in the supernatural cannot be tested, because we cannot test anything supernatural, but we can and do evaluate the results of having that belief on other people and society. We look at the belief system of the Nazi and say, as a society, we do not want that! Every day, in all facets of our life, we judge beliefs. And do you realize why? It is because that beliefs cannot be tested as easily as other ideas. If a belief can be tested and evaluated, and stands the test of peer review, it is not considered a belief anymore (at least not in the same sense as a supernatural belief). In conclusion, we can and we MUST evaluate beliefs, before these beliefs can threaten our civilization.

  5. The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

    Ramen steve, well said.

  6. Hasher says:

    This request to read the linked article and try to view it in the mindset of Austin is a good exercise. In fact it would help Austin to understand what everybody else has has to put up with for the last few hundred years when religions have held sway and forced their mythical beliefs on others.

    However, Austin, nobody is threatening you with death if you speak out against this text.

  7. JAJAJAJAJA says:

    -FOR “BROTHER” AUSTIN- (Angry christian)

    “Blessed are ye when [men] shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you” (Matt 5:3-12, Luke 6:20-23)

    Austin, may be you should ask the holy spirit to penetrate you with some of those fruits of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,gentleness, self-control) you should be filled with! (Galatians 5:22)


    • ST. SPAGHETTI says:

      Or ask the Flying Spaghetti Monster to “penetrate” you with one of his noodley appendages.

  8. Reason says:

    I think that, excluding the final line which is simply offensive,this letter raises some very valid points, and so I feel these need addressing. The word “mocking” is not quite the right word to use for this organisation. This is satirising. There is a small but vital difference, in that satirising does not inherently include any cruel intent or ill will, unlike mocking. There is no intent by this religion to harm or insult any religious people, that is not what it is here for. It was originally created to argue against the forcing of other religions onto those who do not want them. Unfortunately there is now a large number of people who use this as an excuse to attempt to force their atheist views onto religious people, or mock them for it. This is NOT what this Church is for! It saddens me to see people abusing the Church in this way. Our beliefs are absurd, just as, as a physicist, all religious beliefs seem absurd to me. However, that gives nobody the right to declare that for someone to believe in these things is stupid or wrong by pointing at the FSM and saying “You think this is stupid, why do you not think all Religions are stupid”. Religious people love their God. Any kind of love is not stupid. It can give a lot of happiness to a lot of people and nobody else has the right to take that away from them, even if they believe that the object of that love is a fantasy. The idea of Patriotism seems absurd to me, I don’t understand it, but I do not insult people who wish to declare that they love their country, just as I do not insult people who declare that they love their God or Gods.

    • Keith says:

      Sometimes people who send hate mail need to be stomped on. If you read some of their posts you will see (without the need of a degree in psychiatry) that they are genuinely hateful and malicious people. If they claim to believe in a god of peace their claims should be shown to be the falsehoods that they are.

    • Pete Byrdie says:

      What the Church is for depends on the person who uses it, as with any church. It’s outgrown its original purpose, because people are all different. I don’t think any of us here care much that some people believe things unsupportable by logic and evidence, if that’s their choice and they get on with it and are nice people. We don’t have beef with them, although we’ll make it clear what we think, as they do. But we will respond aggressively to aggressive hatemail. I nearly didn’t join here because my first experience was of the hatemail section. I’d read about Pastafarianism and thought it was cool and clever, then read some of the posts here and thought, “This is just another outlet for New Atheist hate!” I’m done with New Atheists on the internet! Perhaps Pastafarianism will be satirising them in a short while. I looked deeper, and realised that mostly only the responses to hatemail had that venom. Who can blame them. If that was what this place was about, I wouldn’t be here. I actually think love is always stupid. That’s one of its most conspicuous features. And loving ones country, a thing that exists and is like a parent in some ways, and loving something that any amount of evidence and logic dismisses from sensible belief, are not the same.

1 60 61 62 63 64 78

Leave a Reply