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 6 7 8 9 10 78
  1. Gabzz says:

    IF you want to know why everyone here mocks you, double check the supposed ‘facts’ about your own religion. They are quite ridiculous and we can all see through the happy, shiny exterior of christianity to the bloody, violent wars, murder of women and children in the Bible, the outragous belief in zombies that you support, the stabbings and killings and dismemberment. The concluding phrase of your post. Hell. Satan. Lightning bolts just happening to hit the bad people full in the face?? You are turning your head from reality and if it were up to me, you would be shunned from society like religious people shun atheists. And by the way, the definition of atheism is no belief. MORE STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE.

    • Anders says:

      Wikipedia says atheism means “rejection of belief in the existence of deities”. That would translate to “rejection of belief in god”. It does not however translate to “rejection of belief”.

      What he was pointing out was that even if you believe there is no god, you still happen to believe (be convinced of) just that. It’s a linguistic technicality… You can say “There’s no god” or “I BELIEVE there is no god” and it would mean the same thing. Often when you say “I believe” something it implies uncertanity, which I happen to think is interesting to note.

      • Keith says:

        Oxford Dictionaries meaning: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist “A person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods”. There is no mention of “nevertheless has a belief system”. Belief is an acceptance of something without proof or evidence, not a non acceptance. I think you will find that most atheists will say “I DO NOT believe in a god, not I BELIEVE there is no god””. I am one of those people who express the former.

        1)Wikipedia is not recommended as a serious authority. It is certainly embargoed as a source for matriculation students in South Australia

        2) Dictionaries will always differ on the exactitude of definitions.

        • Anders says:

          Hi Keith,

          I agree that “believe” probably is not the right word to use, as a person claiming to be an atheist. Also I’m not a native english speaker, and I did not look up the word (poor excuse, I know). I also have to agree on wikipedia not being a proper source.

          Just curious, if you had to choose, which of these two statements would you use?
          1. “I KNOW there is no god”
          2. “I DON’T KNOW if there is a god”

        • Anders says:

          Sorry I was sloppy… replace answer #2 with “I DON’T THINK there is a god”

        • Keith says:

          If I was forced to choose between “I know there is no god” and “I don’t think there is a god” I would have to choose the latter as I have seen no evidence to prove the existence of one. If someone presented me with proof or convincing evidence (as opposed to quoting spurious literature) I would not be an atheist. I am an atheist however because I do not believe in a god. I rarely BELIEVE anything. I will accept things on the basis of EVIDENCE as being worthy of further pursuit and I will accept things on the basis of PROOF as being factual. You may think I am splitting hairs but to me the differences between BELIEF and ACCEPTANCE are important.

        • Anders says:

          Sounds like you’re a real atheist to me then. You don’t know, and since you generally don’t believe in things you don’t know for a fact you dismiss the notion of a god. Right? The only difference between us I think is that I sometimes let myself believe in something that has not be proved. Maybe you’re right, and we’re all just sitting here with no purpose at all, but I’d like to believe there’s a different story to this all :)

        • beardlywoodchop says:

          I think this is a good spot for one of my favorite quotes, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.” –Richard Dawkins. Christians, Catholics, Scientology, etc…Are atheists 99.9% of the time when giving equal credit to all the worlds religions. Don’t think of atheism it as belief, that confuses people and is too broad to cover the specifics. Belief is like some out of control hypothesis machine capable of generating all kinds of wacky shit.

        • Timothy says:

          Anders-keith is not atheist then (who believes there is no god). He is agnostic in his beliefs…in that he truly doesn’t know-or it will always be unknown.

  2. MojoRilla says:

    Dear Austin,

    You say we are mocking religion by gross exaggeration. But how different is Pastafarianism from commonly held religious beliefs?

    Did the world end on May 21st, 2011? Did ancient Hebrews really inhabit America and have elephants and chariots (even though there is no archeological evidence)? Will martyrs really get 72 virgins as a reward in heaven? Should people be stoned to death for blasphemy, disobeying their parents, or not being a virgin on her wedding night? Was the world created in seven days? Would a just and fair god allow innocent infants to starve to death? Would a compassionate god create something as delicious as bacon and then forbid people from eating it?

    If your argument is that Pastafarianism mocks religion by making it seem unrealistic or impossible, I would say religion is doing a great job all by itself.

    • Anders says:

      I think it’s a bit more complex than that. I also find it very hard to believe in the tales of the Bible and probably other religious texts. Also I think the Church has done probably more evil than good. Try to separate belief from the other “stuff”. We have to be able to separate “writings or actions done by some people” from the “actual belief” (which is, stripped from the rel. texts and power structures, closer in nature to philosophy).

      You could then argue that “what is left of a religion without it’s texts?”, and maybe you’re right, but what if the “unwritten” stuff is more important? I mean, if you take the very essence that everyone in a religious group agrees on; the main questions like why we’re here, where we came from, where we’re going to (after life/as a species or planet), how to treat each other.

      In my opinion those are the things that are interesting to discuss. Everything else is just history.

      • Drained and Washed Clean says:

        This “unwritten” stuff you speak of is not religious based. It is human nature based. But religion does not REALLY seek to answer these questions. They just use these questions to push their agenda of god because these questions don’t have easy answers. They use these questions to prey on minds that are scared of dying and those who feel the need to feel morally superior.
        “Why we’re here”
        Religion: Because god has a plan. (god did it)
        Scientists: We don’t know, but we can explain how (but not really a question for them anyway)
        Me: There doesn’t have to be a why to everything. Some things just are.
        “Where we came from”
        Religion: god did it
        Scientists: Combinations of evolution, asteroids, big bang, yada…
        Me: Stardust (it just sounds prettier)
        “Where we’re going”
        Religion: Wherever god wants us to go
        Scientists: We don’t know
        Me: The same place we were before we were here… Nowhere.
        “How to treat each others”
        Religion: How god tells us to (which according to the bible/Qu’ran is not very good – according to history, and without knowledge of history we are just doomed to repeat those mistakes)
        Scientists: According to evolution we treat each other in a way that is acceptable so that we can live in a society.
        Me: Just be nice. If what someone is doing isn’t hurting anyone, then why do I care what you do?

        Those may be interesting things to be discussed, but religion does not need to be involved in those discussions. Especially since it is not willing to look past its own nose.

        • Anders says:

          Yet these questions and values are often the core for religious quarrels.

          I’m assuming that by “human nature based” you mean culture. Can you that easily separate religion from the culture and say it wasn’t part of its creation? I think you’re absolutely right about religious groups taking advantage of populations by providing answers. Even so this is not always the case and certainly not that much today as in the past. Today I think some people also seek out religion on their own, and not necessarily because they’re “scared of dying” or “feel the need to feel morally superior”. Some people just want to find answers to the questions. And I’m talking about those that need more answers than you apparently.

          Why are you not interested in knowing why we’re here? “Some things just are” sounds a bit apathetic to tell you the truth. Well, some people care and want to know. Can you imagine if we knew our purpose and how much that would help us all working together towards a common goal? It would be great.
          You say that scientists can’t explain why we’re here. That’s true, and if you mean that it’s “not really a question for them anyway” – then who is it a question for? … you just kicked the ball over from science to belief. Which is ok, I just wanted you to know. Which implies that if you want to know why, you may be agnostic and not atheist.

          As to our origin, the religious would claim god did it, yet it doesn’t exclude the scientific explanations. I also like stardust, and it sounds nice. It’s well known science and I’m pretty sure you’re not the first to think of it as what we’re all made of :) If we came “from the stars” (stardust) – that doesn’t exclude a deity made that happen.

          Our purpose (“where we’re going”) is maybe the hardest part to figure out. Another reason why there are so many that are not content with science alone. I for one made my own purpose “to be happy” as I thought that was nice. Later on I changed that to “be happy and make others happy”. Of course this is just my own definition, which may or may not coincide with a religious belief. Anyway, even if it seems we’re going “nowhere” like you said, I think we’re just moving very slow and it appears as if we’re standing still. But the dinosaurs could be evidence of the exact opposite… If humans will be eradicated then what’s the point? Maybe the answer is to enjoy life while it lasts, and not worry too much about the human race.

        • Drained and Washed Clean says:

          Culture? Where did that assumption come from? Human nature, meaning all humans have it in their nature, to wonder about these questions. Religion is attempting to fill in the blanks, but it is not the basis for these questions. These questions came first. Religion came second. And are you serious about religion not taking advantage of their position? They are trying to take over governments and create countries based on their values. Look at countries like Iran. People do not seek out religion on their own. They are indoctrinated into it from the day they are born. The answers to the questions are in science. Not in religion. Religion is continuing the AIDS epidemic in Africa because it does not believe in contraceptives like condoms. Religion kills women for being raped. Religion sews women’s vagina’s together so they won’t cheat. Religion rapes little boys and then just sends the perpetrators to other places to do the same thing. Religion tries to take away the rights of those who do not believe as they do. Religion tries to indoctrinate young children with their fairy tales dressed up as science. Religion is trying to insert its “morality” into the laws of the country (which include laws that discriminate against people). Religion is taking GREAT advantage of their position.

          Apathy would mean I don’t care. There is a difference between not caring and admitting that there doesn’t have to be a reason for everything. Religion tries to make everyone feel that there is a need for everything to mean something. That is why there is a god in the first place. We make our own purpose, and the common goal is survival and to live together in a society. We don’t need a god to tell us those things. What I said is scientists do not answer questions of why we are here. Philosophers do. Last time I checked there are atheist philosophers too. I think the statement that “needing to know why would imply agnosticism as apposed to atheism” is something to consider. I can see that. It would be a great philosophical discussion. But agnosticism still does not imply religion which is what we are talking about.

          You are still trying to insert a deity. Science also doesn’t exclude the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Chocolate Farting Dude, or a celestial turtle. Every god is just as unlikely as the next. And stardust is just a simpler, shorter way of saying what the scientists say. And we are. Without the elements created from supernovas we wouldn’t be here. That is a fact.

          In your original statement you said this question of where we are going relates to an afterlife (which is where “nowhere” entered in. We are not going to magical places with golden gates or to fiery pits), then stated that people do not cling to religion because they are afraid to die. Now: “Another reason why there are so many that are not content with science alone.” Because science doesn’t know the answer. So they need religion because they are scared of not knowing what happens when they die. The unknown scares people. That is the reason why religion was created in the first place. It is the easy answer. It is the one that does not require research. It is one that does not require reasoning. Where we are going as a species depends on how we as individuals choose to live. Still has nothing to do with a deity. There doesn’t need to be prophets to tell us. We make those choices.

          If humans will be eradicated then what’s the point?
          Questions like this, to me, make me think that people think too much of themselves. All you have is the here and now on this tiny planet spinning in the middle of an unfathomably vast universe. We are nothing more than a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things. What is the point of that? There is no point. That is what I have said from the beginning. It just is. The fact we existed and survived so long is a cool fact. Our technological accomplishments are cool facts. The fact that we could still aid in the next species to rule this planet is a cool thing to think about. It is awesome and amazing that it is. But that’s it. There is no reason, and there doesn’t have to be. So, as you said, lets just enjoy it.

          But what do you mean by not worry about the human race? This confuses me…

      • wulff says:

        The unwritten stuff is called philosophy, and has existed separate from (and often in opposition to) religion for centuries. The essence of philosophy, from its earliest days, is to use reason, observation and rational discourse to answer those very questions without using fear of all-powerful-invisible-sky-people-waiting-to-punish-us-for-the-slightest-infraction.

        • Anders says:

          Thanks for the reminder wulff. Philosophy is the word I was looking for.

          By the way a good movie on the topic philosophy vs religion is Agora (2009) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1186830/ about the egyptian philosopher Hypatia who was obstructed by religion.

        • Drained and Washed Clean says:

          Ancient Egyptians: yet another example of a civilization destroyed by religion.

  3. Big Guy says:

    You’re all fools comparing or casting disparities on Christendom is odiously spurious.

    God’s ten commandments could save this world from the evil that pervades every corner.

    Barn yard morality coupled to pro choice homoeunuchian edicts have all but destroyed our world.

    A modern day Sodom & Gomorrah await you blind fools!

    • Big Guy says:

      Which is why we should start enforcing the ten commandments. I suggest we start by stoning those who troll the web on the sabbath.

    • Thomas L. Nielsen says:

      “Barn yard morality coupled to pro choice homoeunuchian edicts have all but destroyed our world.”

      Sorry, Mr. Guy, but even by your standards that sentence makes no sense. Please try again.

      Regards & all,

      Thomas L. Nielsen
      Space Pyrate Training Centre

      PS: Mr. Guy, you must be the one person who can answer a question that has been bouncing around in my head for years now: We all know that the sexual practice known as “sodomy” is named after the biblical city of Sodom. Is there a parallel sexual practice named after Gomorrah (“gomorry”, possibly?), and what exactly does it involve?

      • Metal Head says:

        It involves two females with strap-ons.

        • Thomas L. Nielsen says:

          At times like this I curse my overactive imagination.

          Thomas L. Nielsen
          Sigmund Freud Institute of Sexual Deviations

    • TiltedHorizon says:

      First off, learn to use your own rhetoric correctly. “Barn yard” is one word. One, not two words.

      Secondly, invest in a thesaurus. Your dependancy on the same words is comical but the lack of a vocabulary is undermining the claim of having a high IQ. For example, “odiously spurious”, works better with a conjunction. As presented it is means “unpleasantly fake” or “repulsively false”. Either way it just sounds stupid. An ampersand would have been great.

      Third, proper punctuation goes a long way. A well placed comma helps to separate distinct ideas and statements. For example, “You’re all fools”, could have been a conclusion followed by a comma. Your response could have looked like this:

      “You’re all fools, comparing or casting disparities on Christendom is odious & spurious.”

      Feel free to learn from this.

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        TH: I couldn’t agree with you more! Having an IQ substantially lower than 140, I did, BTW, look up “disparity”, and it actually has nothing much to do with “disparagement”.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          ….or aspersion….

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          I interpreted ‘casting disparities’ as his assertion that we are trying to “create a difference” or “point out the differences” in religion. Now that I think about it, he likely meant disparage, it fits better with his mindset.

        • TiltedHorizon says:

          … BTW

          The word ‘aspersion’ sounds too much like ‘ass-person’ which would trigger his compulsive wanking. He would not be able to use it.

          “… comparing or casting disparities aspersions……. OOooOOooOoOoooo….. wank wank wank”

        • Spammyboy says:

          Or, for that matter, asparagus… I’ve been having a bad day, and just seeing the intelligent comments from Tilted, DAWC and others I’m actually smiling again

        • Drained and Washed Clean says:

          Aww Spammyboy! :( Hopefully His Noodliness has touched you and you have had better days since!

    • Midnight Rider says:

      What the hell does “odiously spurious” mean? It reminds me of Garfield’s dog.

      If God’s ten commandments ‘could’ save this world, why haven’t they already?

      What is ‘barn yard morality?’ Does it have to do with the book Animal Farm?

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        He might have meant “spusiously odoriferous”?

    • wulff says:

      Look to the words of the Immortal Carlin, giB yuG. You only need three commandments to make the world a better place.

      • wulff says:

        For anyone unfamiliar with Carlin’s 3 Commandments:

        1) Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie;

        2) Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anybody (unless you pray to a different invisible man than you do); and

        3) Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!

    • erkin says:

      Not sure if just insane or a really good troll… Hmm…

  4. Carl says:

    Thank you for writing such a good first paragraph. Probably took your whole family weeks to compose it. Spend more time on the jihadist websites talking shit next time and lay off us Americans, we are all still on the same team, some of you are just slower than others.. take some science classes if you ever have some time, philosophy of religion is a great class too.

    • Drained and Washed Clean says:

      PS – Not everyone here is an American… Freedom from religion being taught in public education is a world wide issue.

  5. Big Guy says:

    You know you’re wining by how mad you make your opponent, so stop whining.

    FYI I majored in religious studies…


    • Thomas L. Nielsen says:

      “FYI I majored in religious studies….”

      At what university? And did you actually graduate?

      Regards & all, rAmen and Aarrr,

      Thomas L. Nielsen
      Educational Monitoring Board

    • Big Guy says:

      That is how we know Bobby Henderson is “winning”; he has made me so mad that I am entirely obsessed with this website.
      (Too bad you don’t learn much about spelling when you major in religious studies.)

      • insert clever name says:

        too bad you don’t learn anything, for that matter….

    • Drained and Washed Clean says:


      Oh… and notice he said majored, not have a BA or BS or a masters… Me thinks someone didn’t actually graduate.

      • puppygoogoo says:


        I think its apparent he is full of BS. lol.


    • Big Guy says:

      Imposter posting at 10:03 am, i majored in wanking and creative spelling. You filthy pastafarian barnyard odious sodomites better stop posing as me or God will punish you as he did the suckling babes in Jericho.

      The REAL Big Guy has spoken

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        First off, the Jericho story – like most of the BuyBull – is a myth. The Israelites were not an invading army; more like a social movement. Then again, the cities supposedly conquered by Joshua show decay and abandonment rather than destruction, and that over a period of hundreds of years.

        As a Christian, this should please you. Unless of course, you prefer to have a god who condones murder, rape and pillage.

        • wulff says:

          Always remember: The buybulL is the LITERAL worD of goD…

          except for when it’s not.

    • TiltedHorizon says:

      LOL. You majored in religious studies? Yet all ‘your’ arguments on the subject are cut & pasted from other sites, apparently you did learn enough to formulate any of your own ideas. My guess is that this claim, much like the assertion of a 140 I.Q., is all a figment of your imagination. Even your name is a vain attempt to inflate your image. What a sad little man you really must be.

      I’ll pray to the FSM for you.

    • Midnight Rider says:

      You majored in religious studies….did you get a degree in something? Or do you still have 3 credits left to take in spelling class?

    • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

      Majoring in religious studies…does that include voodoo or Santeria? Too me it seems less worthy than studying metaphysical mumbojumbo like chakras and crystals and auras.

    • TiltedHorizon says:


      I am starting to think ‘Big Guy’ is really Charlie Sheen.

      • wulff says:

        Except he’s made no references to tigers, warlocks or goddesses. And I haven’t heard Sheen use the phrase “spurious chide” ad nauseum. They probably both go the same church, though.

  6. Garrick says:

    Quick! Put lollipops on your heads and eat laxatives like breath mints or the leprechauns will kill you! RESPECT MY BELIEF SYSTEM!

    • insert clever name says:

      you’ve failed to understand what this whole thing is about…

      either way, eating laxatives is better than spending every sunday worshiping a hypocritical zombie wizard.

      • Drained and Washed Clean says:

        I think you failed to understand the point of Garrick’s post.

      • Metal Head says:

        “zombie wizard”? That’s a GREAT name for a new death metal band! I owe you.

    • Big Guy says:

      Oh my, Garrick, another shitty religion. Is this a derivative of the dogma of the Farting Chocolate Dude, or a new Christian sect?

  7. Big Guy says:

    @ Big Guy impostor you know who you are…

    The one & only Big Guy posts are sent immediately to gray purgatory, so try as you might to emulate me
    you’re nothing but a spurious joke infecting this thread. Try standing on your own 2 feet for once or
    are you living your real life vicariously through others as well?

    the fsm movement was started by the atheists heathen Bobby whose only edict was to destroy Christendom.
    all of your participation hereafter is redundantly mute because the fsm aka bin laden is dead & dumped at sea get over it…

    • Big Guy says:

      Impostor, don’t you ever try to be me. Or else I’ll have you arrested by google police. Or if you are not in his jurisdiction, by the Microsoft police.
      The one and only Big Guy
      PS The pugatory does not exist. So decided the infallible Holy See after telling everyone it did for 2000 years.

      • Midnight Rider says:

        No, purgatory is still there, he did away with Limbo. But that’s neither here nor there…hahaha. Sorta makes you wonder how someone can just say a plane of existence just isn’t there anymore. Makes the old bullshit detector go into overload.

        I’m still trying to figure out what “redundantly mute” means. Hmmm. I have seen pictures of the FSM and I have seen pictures of Osama. They are not the same. One is noodley with 2 meatballs while the other one used to be a human being, though not a nice one.


        • puppygoogoo says:

          Did away with limbo? too many injuries? what am i going to do with my limbo stick? great, now i have limbo music running through my head….


          p.s. this comment is tic for those that care.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          Shows you how smart god really is. Sold off Limbo just before the real estate crash. Now some poor sucker is stuck with a place – I imagine by its very name – not near anywhere else and loaded with crying, unbaptized babies.

      • Google Police says:

        I’m on the job, real Big Guy!


      • beardlywoodchop says:

        Actually majoring in religious studies isn’t such a bad idea. It’s a foot in the door to one of the most successful businesses of all time (so successful it only has to open once a week for a few hours) and I hear the customers are complete idiots.

  8. Emtreid says:

    According to your second definition of mockery, creationism has been mocking itself for a very long time now

1 6 7 8 9 10 78

Leave a Reply