What exactly do you think you are going to prove?

Published July 22nd, 2011 by Bobby Henderson

What exactly do you think you are going to prove? it’s just disrespectful to other human beings faiths and beliefs, and im sure u of all people should know u can’t put any sense into say a devout christian. Honestly, what your doing is the equivalant of making a rude, sarcastic joke to a child that doesn’t understand humor. u cant tell a christian thats been raised from birth to believe that there’s a magic man in the clouds that he’s wrong. you’ll just get what uve been getting, hate mail, and death threats. God is the equivalant of santa exept the child is never told he isn’t real until it’s to late. and u think your doing a good thing by making up this pastafarian crap to prove how absurd the idea of god is. what i don’t think u understand is that u cant argue with idiots about this stuff as most christians are dont know a thing about science.(I apoligize to all respectable christian scientists). as an athiest, im disgusted what youre doing. like making fun of christians being killed by somali’s, and u quoting, "apparently they thought there god could give them safe passage"(yes ive read ur website). really, did it ever, or does it ever occur to you that these people are actually human being’s with family’s and feeling’s, and just because they think the world was created  differantly than u, u have to mock them… that’s kind of a dick move. your being no better than they are(religious people) by making fun of and disrespecting other people just ’cause they think differantly than u. oh wait u are religous, u worship a flying spaggetti monster. which means i have the right to ridicule u on how stupid your dumbfuck religion is(oh may the great pasta diety forgive me for my sin) and dont deny that u worship the all mighty pasta king, because your the leader of the church. with the true words of your religion written on a piece of paper. it’s ironic that u, by trying to prove how bad religion is. go about it by u yourself inbodying everything that is wrong with human beliefs. u are everything that is wrong with athiesm. u go around acting all superior and pompus, like u know better than everyone else and tell them why there wrong mockingly. the world would be a better place if u took all your "followers" (butt pirates) got on a pirate ship and ate spaggetti until you all died of overeating.have u ever heard the term live and let live? and i love it how  u post all the hate mail u get on a your page to be ridiculed by your cronies( who by the way need to get of the internet and do something productive)yes we all the the bible huggars are gonna say dumb stuff because they’re uneducated. but that doesn’t mean u have to be immature and make fun of there faults so just lay off. even though this message sounds hostile just know i agree with what your’e trying to do (i think) educating people, i just wholly disagree with how u are going about it.


A short response from Bobby:

It’s not our intention to mock or offend anyone. But I realize people sometimes feel mocked  or offended.

It might be fair to say that we’re disrespectful.  I would agree that most Pastafarians don’t respect the notion that religion should sit on a pedestal.  We don’t think that because an action is explained in the context of religion it is exempt from the scrutiny it otherwise would have been subjected to.  Religion is not a free pass for crazy ideas and crazy actions. 

I would agree that it’s not our place to pass judgment on those who see the world through a lens of religion.  But neither is it our place to ignore when personal belief becomes public action.  We can accept that some choose to teach their kids the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs are a myth.  But if they push for those ideas to be taught in our schools, it’s no longer a question of respecting personal belief.

The idea that rational minded people must be anti-religion is a wrong one, I think.   If we must draw a line to divide ourselves, I’d prefer the line be positioned between reasonable and unreasonable people, rather than religious and non-religious people.  

It’s one thing to see the world through a lens, and another thing to act as if it’s the only lens that can exist.

I believe there is no group more tolerant of other religious and nonreligious groups than Pastafarians, without question.  The death of the Christian sailors by pirates was a sad thing for everyone who heard of it, I’m sure.  My hope is that it doesn’t happen again.  The hard question is:  will criticizing the decision to venture into dangerous areas on the basis of faith help avoid a similar situation in the future?  I don’t know the answer.  But I wonder how many of their friends and family wish they had shaken them and said this is a bad idea, don’t do this.  This is one of the hard questions – this line between respect and concern. 

965 Responses to “What exactly do you think you are going to prove?”

  1. Guybrush Threepwood says:

    Dear friends, brothers and sisters!

    First of all, let me apologize for my English. It is only my third language and I will make some mistakes, no matter how hard I try. Second, I find no proper way to post this message of mine as a theme/title, new theme, whatever the word is.

    I do not use outlook express or something like it and therefore I am so far unable to send this as a new subject/theme.

    I have been a visitor of this site for a long time. It is incredible and I just love it! I am an atheist as for practical life. otherwise I am an agnostic as I do not dare to presume that there is no other being in the whole Universe that can have god-like powers (like Q in Star Trek).

    To the point. I was always very tollerant to the other people beliefs. I am actually married to a catholic woman and I love her so much that we have been married in a church (Even though I do not believe in their crap).

    But I see all the shit that the believers are doing to us. It is not only 9/11, there are bombings, killings, abductions etc. all in the name of the god. The very last thing is an attack on Norway. Have you watched the news? Incredible, unbelievable and completely unnecessary.

    As we all know, there is no god. Ok, except for pasta! :-) But my point is, and pardon my words, why the FUCK are we so tollerant??? All religions, at least monotheistic, are violent, cruel and stupid. Humankind would be much better, if these fairy-tales would be forbbiden.

    Once again, I do not care, what somebody believes. But if I end up as a patern of blood upon a wall of the building, because some idiot thinks, he will get 72 virgins (just an example) for killing me and some others with a bomb, than I am concerned.

    We know the truth. A smart child of seven would know it. Let us bring the truth to others, before those religious bastards kill us all, either with bombs or by over-populating Earth with their believers.

    Best regards,


    P.S. Bobby, my respect to you. Please let me know, how can I publish an “article” or something of this sort and size on your site. Thank you, my friend.

    • wulff says:

      I will again ask what evidence you can provide that shows the Norway attack was in any way spiritually motivated.

      “As we all know, there is no god.” – Another blanket assumption without factual backing. Some of us do not think that god exists. Others believe he doesn’t. (And yes, there is a difference between the two statements.) None of us can PROVE that he doesn’t, only that the evidence *suggests* non-existence. We may in fact be wrong.

      “All religions, at least monotheistic, are violent, cruel and stupid.” When was the last act or terrorism committed in the name of Buddha?

      “why the FUCK are we so tollerant??? – Because THAT is the cornerstone of Atheistic Morality – that if we ALL tolerated and accepted those who feel and think differently from us, this species just might start getting its shit together before it’s too late.

      • Sorry to be a douche here says:

        I’d just like to point out that, at least in my understanding and this may not be true, Buddhism is technically atheistic in that they have no gods, buddh being more of a profit (profet? I’m I’m writing this from my phine and I can’t do a spellcheck) than a god, like christ in all the christian religions without the trinity thing. Otherwise, I thuroughly agree with your points.

        • wulff says:

          While it is true that Buddhism has no gods, it is still usually considered a religion because its practitioners are on a quest for a spiritual enlightenment.

        • Mal says:

          There are certain branches of Buddhism (Mahayana, for instance) that refer to enlightened beings who are no longer constrained by a physical body. If my understanding is correct, these beings (Bodhisattvas) are worshiped to some extent, so in my mind, that would make certain sects of Buddhism religious.

          Amitabha Buddhism actually teaches of a “Pure Land”, ruled over by a Buddha, which is basically the same idea as heaven.

          I’m not an expert by any means, so if there is someone here who is more knowledgeable, please correct me.

      • Dr. Astronomer says:

        Also to be nit picky, but there have been several stories of late about child abuse in Buddhist temples. While not “terrorism” on a large scale…well, you get my point. No religion is immune to people who use religion to get what they want. I’ve often wondered if there was no religion would we truly be a more peaceful planet or would there always be crazies who would find another excuse? Does religion make their agenda easier to realize? I don’t have an answer to that.

        • Keith says:

          I used to have a book written by Alexandra David-Néel in which she said that Buddhist monks would travel around with young novices. One of the functions of the novice was to satisfy the monk’s pleasure. As far as terrorism goes Buddhist warriors have had a reputation for being pretty fierce and unforgiving. In Tibet local warlords used to travel around with Buddhist monks: normally one would think that monks would not associate themselves with such vicious bastards.

        • Powdrslut says:

          many Buddhists are atheists, a good book that covers this topic is “Buddhism without Beliefs”… not all buddhists are seeking enlightenment, many are seeking to learn a more peaceful way to respond to life.

        • Olio says:

          Yes. Fame associated with sports were utilized in a recent child abuse scandal in the news. Some covering the story referred to it as the church of football. About revering figures similarly. Probably any position of authority can be mis used by the wrong people. But there are certain aspects of various religions that might lend to that potential further in some cases, in my entirely unsolicited opinion, since you raised the topic.

      • OklahomaHoss says:

        If I may humbly interject one thing about Buddhism here, wulff. Buddhism is not a monotheistic religion. In fact, it’s not a religion at all. Buddhists do not worship Buddha. They follow his philosophies and aspire to the nirvana he teaches about. In fact, if we follow that logic, then we see that it’s entirely possible to be both Buddhist and atheist simultaneously.

        Of course, not being a buddhist myself, I could be wrong about all of this and just be talking ot of my ass.

        • Keith says:

          You aren’t talking out of your arse OklahomaHoss. Pure Buddhism does not recognise the existence of any gods. Buddhism in some countries has incorporated native and foreign gods into their beliefs. I think though that these would not be considered eternal and all powerful beings but beings of great power that are still trapped in their own world of illusion. That is presumably why the Jade Emperor in “Journey to the West” has to appeal to Buddha to help him control another supernatural being. JE is not the Chinese equivalen of Jehova. The translation into English of “god” is probably not quite accurate anyway. Of course, some people will say that I’m splitting hairs.

        • Lunchbox The Pirate says:

          You are not wrong OH. I have practiced Zen Buddhism for a little over 11 years. I am also an atheist. I am ALSO, now recently, a Pastafarian. I believe that there is no god, however god should not be a reason to act human and the idea human is one who is in control of his emotional state at all times. It is the practice of emptiness. Some sects of Buddhism practice deity warship however that was not intended. The original practice of bowing to a statue of him was to, in essence, bow to yourself as we are all Buddha.

    • Drained and Washed Clean says:

      I am with you on no tolerance. I see no point to being tolerant. All I see is damage. I think the faster we evolve out of religion the better off we will be. I am with Sam Harris on this. If we don’t figure it out we are just going to end up destroying ourselves over an invisible friend in the sky…

      • lord barbecue says:

        Here’s a link to an interesting paper from Stanford that postulates several evolutionary pressures towards religion.
        In a nutshell, the author postulates that religion increase group bonding and provides some medicinal benefit via the placebo effect.


        I hope the author is wrong, or at least that there are alos evolutionary pressures away from religion.

        • Lynda says:

          There is definitely an evolutionary reason behind us having religion.. However it is my feeling that those reasons have been completely destroyed by science and good reasoning. Now it seems to be kept in place by those who are either being stubborn or who are too lazy to use their brain. Oh and I almost forgot the ones who need it as an excuse to hate others or are afraid to not believe. Also the current positive effects can easily be replicated in todays society without needing to be illogical.

        • Thomas L. Nielsen says:

          “….several evolutionary pressures towards religion.”

          Am I the only one to see the wonderful irony if this is actually the case?

          Regards & all, and Aarrrr…..

          Thomas L. Nielsen
          Holy Bank of the FSM

        • Keith says:

          I’m certain religion has had its uses in society. It is possible that Neanderthal and Cro Magnon man had religion: the purpose being to to give everyone a common focal point so that they could cooperate and survive. Later it became a focus of control because the focal point of cooperation became to build a society. Religion was still there but it had altered its perspective. Now that society was together it had the function of electing a ruler due to “closesness to god”who could provide you with the necessesary living objectives. (see “An Unearthly Child” : the first story in the Dr Who series )Later it became a power struggle for egotists and they were very inventive about it.

    • I'm Brian and so's my wife says:

      As somebody who grew up in Northern Ireland in the 1970’s and 80’s, I saw first hand many horrors committed in the name of religion. Many people assume that my atheism stems from this, but they are wrong. I’ve never been concerned about whether religious beliefs are peaceful or violent, altruistic or selfish, good or bad, but rather whether they are real or imagined. That’s all that matters, arguments for atheism based on the evils of religion are irrelevant. They have no bearing one way or the other on the truth. Just like Heaven being preferable to Oblivion doesn’t make it real.

      We can’t know for sure if religious beliefs are a fabrication, but the available evidence (or lack of it) points very strongly towards that probability.

      • Atsap Revol says:

        Brian, your point is well taken. The “REAL or IMAGINED” test is the right cutting edge. But I still respond to missionaries who try to convert me that I could never worship a violent, petty, self-centered god like theirs. Then I quote a couple of passages from scriptures to support my contention that their god is a mass-murdering misanthrope.


        • I'm Brian and so's my wife says:

          I understand Atsap, but would you worship an imaginary God that was totally benevolent, kind and peaceful?

          I wouldn’t. He’s imaginary. What does it matter if he’s believed to be evil or good? He isn’t real, so his characteristics aren’t real either.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Name one benevolent and peaceful god other than the FSM. I don’t worship imaginary characters, be they gods, goddesses, or gummy bears. My piont is that most Christians haven’t studied the parts of the Old Testament that show the nasty side of their holy god. I just try to wake them up by pionting out that as described in the buy-bull, their god is far from merciful and loving all the time.


        • I'm Brian and so's my wife says:

          You’re missing the point AR.

          Name me one God that is real.

          That should be the starting and ending point of any conversation with a Christian. Pointing out to people that their God is a nasty piece of work is redundant. He isn’t any nastier than the Grinch, because like the Grinch, he isn’t real. The nice stuff about God in the Bible is nonsense, the nasty stuff about God in the Bible is nonsense.

          You shouldn’t be trying to wake these people up to the bad parts of their fictional book. You should be trying to wake them up to the probability that it’s a totally FICTIONAL book, good or bad.

        • Specile Sicentis says:

          I thkin teh piont hear is thatt religien is totaly fucking piontless taday, and porbelly wil bee tomarrow.

          4 yeers, Ferenst Anrtoplogists hav being triyng 2 fynd evedinzes that their iz a G-d. Thay hve onlie finded hummans who’ve dyed sumhow. Thiss is the fucking piont…it iz all piontless. So wee as hummans neeed 2 stik to the fucking piont.

          Git teh piont? I no Ferenst Anrtoplogist wood argee.

        • Rev. wulff says:

          Actually, Brian, I operate quite similarly to AR. If I can get people to accept that the “peace and love” parts of the book are false, it becomes easier to get them to accept the other inconsistencies. From there it’s a short path to disbelief. Simply telling someone that their beliefs are wrong makes them defensive and less likely to be analytical.

          If your method brings you results, by all means continue. But I find the step-by-step process more effective for me.

        • Atsap Revol says:

          Yes, Rev. Wulff, that’s exactly my piont. My experience has been that Christians will not listen to a “The Bible is Bullshit Sermon.” Most ex-Christians gave up their beliefs when they were told or learned on their own that the Bible is full of inconsistencies and descriptions of a nasty god. However, I think most fundamentalists are so deeply brainwashed that de-conversion is difficult if not impossible.

          I don’t care what religious people believe as long as: (1) They don’t try to get me to buy into their silliness, and (2) They keep their dogma in their church and home and OUT OF OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

          I checked with Ferenst Anrtoplogist, and he agrees with these pionts.


      • Olio says:

        Good that you survived, Brian.

        Please say hi to your wife, Brian.

    • Basil Pesto says:

      Ramen to that!

      Why be tolerant of others who want to splatter your brains just because you’re not one of them?
      Personnally, I’ll take them on at every turn.
      They invoke their free-speech rights spew their bronze-age superstitions?
      They invoke their religious rights to limit the rights of others?

      I invoke my rights to dissagree with them, and to fight them (non-violently at first, but if they get physical, I will not turn the other cheek).

      I am not tolerant of hypocrites and charlatans.

    • Olio says:

      Guy brush I do not believe what you have cited about the 72 was the reasoning behind the bombing, as I was to understand it that aspect was merely an enticement, a belief held by the suicide bombers, not a means or justification for their actions, as many acts of aggression are based in justifications which may or may not have any basis in a belief about god or spirituality and following death, those remaining place interpretations. One president in USA mentioned directives from god while invoking this we went to war in this way effectively making it a holy quest and battle. The way I understand it, people believe many things about life after death, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. Had the people involved been atheist, they still might have opted to do what they did. There are people whom believe this whom would not hurt a fly. It is difficult to envision a planet without violence. It comes down to this in part. Environments leading to circumstances.

  2. Stophe says:

    Phew. Don’t you guys get tired of those hate-mailers? I won’t bother reading this one. It’s not formatted, and contains lotsa spelling errors, so I don’t think it’s some genius speech that could miraculously change our view on life, god, or pasta.

    How can Bobby still reply with words as structured and delicious as lasagna?

    By the way, those hate-mailers should join a summary of their spaghetti-like litanies…

    • stylusmobilus says:

      I cannot presume to speak for all Pastafarians but I will never, ever get sick of the hate mailers. To me, they hold a very special place here, and if they were ever to go I would miss them so dearly.

      • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

        I came across this while I was trawling through old posts. Are you still out there stylusmobilus? If you are you can see your concerns have long since come to pass; do you miss them? I most certainly do, the old church hasn’t been the same since they’ve gone. I have been reading recent responses to 2 and 3 year old posts, such is the current state of affairs surrounding our beloved forum. Bobby has said in the past that he had become reticent about posting hate-mail because it didn’t represent the mainstream mods; that may be so but we still have a job to do and how do we spread the word when we have no audience to whom we can proselytize; no amount of ‘preaching to the choir’ will supplant the feeling that one might get just from the thought that we might be making a difference.

        While I’m on the subject of ‘making a difference’ may I take the opportunity to recommend a book I’m currently reading, it’s entitled ‘A Manual for Creating Atheists’ written by Peter Boghossian and available in Kindle format. I have read dozens of atheist/humanist/freethinker books but this one is very different, it explains how attacking someones religion or deity will often result in them digging in their heels (OK, we know that) but then goes on to describe in detail how one can use non-threatening Q&A sessions that, if properly executed, may plant a seed of rational thinking that might result in the individual disabusing his or her self of there faith. Incidentally, I have no interest to declare regarding the book other than that I think it is very enlightening and an interesting read.

        May the Sauce be with you all

        The Reverend

        • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

          Sorry, THEIR faith.

        • Keith says:

          There used to be a number of posters with evocative names like “Beardly Woodchop” (or something like that). I often wonder what happened to them.

        • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

          Probably got bored of what has become of the site and given up. There are any number of names we no longer see, Dr Astronomer, Drained, I’m Brian, Thomas L Nielson to name but a few. I like to think they are out there somewhere waiting for the opportunity to once again enter into the lively debate that this site was once famous for.
          If you are a past regular contributor but haven’t posted for a while, give us a ‘hello’ just to reassure the remaining few that we are still strong and not the toothless milksop bunch we seem to have become.

          May the Sauce be with you.

          The Reverend

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Rev. Toni,
          “Toothless milksop” seems a little tough, but…Guilty, M’Lord. I have, a few times, posted the suggestion that we branch out by more public focusing on ID/CS flakes in various legislatures, etc. – maybe I’ll follow words with action, for once, and troll for response (hate mail?) in David Vitter’s hometown newspaper.

          May His Noodly Appendage rest upon your shoulder!

        • Keith says:

          Well, while on the subject of ID and legislation, those who are curious about what is going on in the Antipodes may be interested to read this: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-11/curriculum-critic-wants-more-religion-to-be-taught-in-schools/5195410 We currently have a right wing government run by a very conservative catholic. I am certain that creationism in science classes is not far away either.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:


          I’ve always said that Wingnuts Abbott and his “mob” (sorry all, Australian in-joke there) would try to bring us to the state of pseudo-theocracy. I’m surprised they’re being this bold about it though. Stirring up of good-ol’ Aussie racism is nothing new, but this is a move in a frightening direction. His mouthpiece Bernardi can take the heat, while Abbott publicly condemns and privately applauds him. The religious lobby groups have far too much influence, public funds go to religious education, as a former nurse I can vouch for the stranglehold that catholicism has on the health sector and how the politics of that are to the detriment of the public, and the bizarre fact that in our great state, the reprehensible hypocrite Fred Nile has the balance of power in the upper house.

          Unfortunately, not being a citizen (yet) of my adopted country, I can’t vote, so I’m swept up for the ride.

          On an interesting aside, I was very happy about what happened in Texas.


          If the Texans can get their shit straight, then other states have a chance, particularly as the article states that the fact that they are the biggest book-buyer (who’da thunk?) then printers aren’t going to make other editions for other states. I’m not into rail-roading teaching institutions into a mode through restricting teaching materials, but I don’t think that applies here. I just think that some people with good-sense made a good decision that is now seen as controversial because of the weight of the religious groups.

        • TheFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          SKM, let me guess the Aussie inside joke. It’s that a gathering of kangaroos are a mob. Meanwhile, as an American having suffered through 8 years of both Ron Ray Gun and George the Shrub, I commiserate with your plight of being ruled by the Religious Right.

        • Keith says:

          Unfortunately, as I may have pointed out before, the seperation of church and state in the Australian constitution only has an implied legal presence. It is not rock solid and even if it were the constitution is often ignored or perverted by those in power. (Rock solid doesn’t mean anything to Australian politicians any more than promises or the truth do: ask the former prime miniature John Howard.)

        • SillyKiwiMan says:


          Good guess, but it’s a reference to the Murdoch media. One of the most lowbrow newspapers in the world blatantly favours the current party in power, and when they were in opposition referred to the Labor party as a “mob” (no kangaroo reference). They photoshopped swastika armbands on politicians and generally ran a smear campaign to benefit the current imbecile at the helm. The same imbecile Keith and I lament stealing our oxygen let alone being our prime minister.

          Keith’s right about the plasticity of the Australian constitution. The same-sex marriage debate stalled a bit courtesy of weak judges currying favour with those who have the power to ensure their continuing employment. We’re now behind South Africa. Big win for human rights in Oz. Still, I can rest on the laurels of my native country. Rugby and same-sex marriages are just two more things New Zealand has over Australia.

        • Keith says:

          Your dollar is almost the same as ours now.

        • SillyKiwiMan says:

          I know, I cry a little when I think of the money I brought with me when I moved to Sydney losing value, and I’ve just been back for a wedding, where the exchange rate was crap, particularly when everything there is so much more expensive!

          Cest la vie.

  3. Brian says:

    I’m 44 now, and was raised from birth as a fundie. When I got into my mid-teens, I began to question the tenets and realities of my faith. Heavy indoctrination (see the movie “Jesus Camp”, describes my childhood to a tee) takes a while to fully overcome as it is nothing more than brainwashing the mind as it is developing. I went from fiery, devout believer to mild, but still defensive, to agnostic and on to (finally) full-blown atheist. It was a long process, and still every day I learn something new. This website is exactly the kind of forum that helped me to organize some of the questions I had into a logical outline, and to answer the criticism I still get when bumping into those I left behind when I left the church (it’s a megachurch now). The FSM has helped me and I know for a fact has helped others like me. Yes, a hard-boiled fundamentalist can change his/her ways, it just takes time, patience and sometimes the FSM. It takes people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens. It takes books about history and real science, biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, and so forth. It takes reading the (in my case) bible, over and over again without someone else looking over my shoulder interpreting everything FOR me. It takes the separation of church and state to allow someone raised like me to disseminate between what is science and what is religion. So I’m not sure you really understand what you’re saying.

    • The Reverend Toni Rigatoni says:

      Welcome to our church Brian. I have to agree totally with your sentiment that this site prepares you as an atheist. Unlike you, I have been an atheist probably for as long as I’ve been able to think rationally but I was mostly unable to intellectualise my feelings beyond the conviction that the concept was preposterous. However, since becoming a Pastafarian I have been fortunate enough to have been exposed to intellects far greater than mine and that has facilitated me to be better prepared to defend my position, which unfortunately is frequently, with intelligent argument rather than with a shrug of the shoulders and a ‘Well that’s what I think’ kind of response. I am forever indebted to my fellow Pastafarians for liberating me and making me realise that I was not a voice in the wilderness so to speak. Long live the CotFSM!

      May the sauce be with you

      The Reverend

    • Dr. Astronomer says:

      Welcome! My teen years were spent among fundies too. When you believe hell exists, the threat of it is a very real and powerful thing to overcome. I think lifelong atheists may not realize that. Saying the church is lying equates to God is lying and that is unacceptable for many. I try to point out that a particular church in question has its own agenda and may not be acting in the way God intended. Bonus points if you can reference Bible passages as to why a church or person is not actually doing “God’s work”. To say God doesn’t exist alienates people. To say, the leaders of the church are human too and are maybe not doing what God intended is less threatening. It also starts people thinking for themselves.

      • Basil Pesto says:

        Well said.

        I never speak of god(s).
        It’s a sterile argument anyway.
        I concentrate my criticism on religion, religious people and the inevitable hypocrisy between any believer’s faith (FSM excluded, of course!) and their actions.
        This method is infailible.

  4. Specile Sicentis says:

    So, u agree with what wer’e trying to do (u think) but u think we should put all our ‘butt pirates’ on a pirate ship and ate spaggetti till we died of overeating. Can u decide where u stand?

    Look, we try not to act all superior and pompus. I agree, we all the the bible huggars definitely gonna say dumb stuff because there uneducated. And u’r right, most christians are don’t know a thing about sicents.

    But that’s be side the piont. U don’t think we can argue with idiots. I think u are wrong, and it’s fun anyway. Do u think all christians are idiots?

    it’s ironic that u, ridicule us on how stupid our dumbfuck religion is when u display such a dumbfuck level of grammar and punctuation u’rself.

  5. ewky says:

    The really grim element in this discussion is what Mr. Hate-Mail overlooks: the seriousness of this debate. For example, and this is just one off the cuff, we have military service members who are willing to fight and die for this country who are unable to extend their health care and other benefits to their spouses… because of the religious beliefs that some choose to impose on everyone.

    That’s what disrespect looks like, Mr. Hate-Mail. That’s what is really “wrong” in this discussion. Tax dollars being spent to deny Americans basic rights because some people want to impose their beliefs on everyone else. That’s what deserves mockery. It is difficult to mock people who make sacrifices for others, like those serving in uniform or Jesus, who said things like “worship in private” and “I give you a new commandment: love your neighbor as yourself”.

    It is easy, and maybe even ethically mandatory, to mock those who disrespect those who make sacrifices. If you don’t love your neighbor and you want to take your neighbor’s money to make “don’t love your neighbor constitutional amendments” well, then, I’m not sure what religion that is (Apostleism), but it’s EXACTLY the kind of thing that decent civilized people should mock and marginalize.

  6. Icanspell says:

    Oy oy oy… I got a whole load of stuff to say, but I won’t. What I will say, however, is that actually no one on here openly mocks religion. In fact it’s people like you who make long posts that start reasonable and fair, then descend into madness and start assuming thins and anwsering your own questions… And PLEASE people! The apostraphe is not used for plurals! Only possesion and abbreviation.

    • English Teacher says:

      Icanspell says…

      Oy oy oy… I (I‘ve) got a whole load of stuff to say, but I won’t. What I will say, however, is that actually no one on here openly mocks religion. In fact it’s people like you who make long posts that start reasonable and fair, then descend into madness and start assuming thins (things)and anwsering (answering) your own questions… And PLEASE people! The apostraphe (apostrophe) is not used for plurals! Only possesion (possession) and abbreviation.

      Icanspell… no you can’t!

  7. Guybrush Threepwood says:

    Icanspell, why are you so tolerating towards religion? You SHOULD mock it!

    Did you see Norway, lately? Dozens of people dead or dying, because of some religious IDIOTS!

    NO, no more more tolerance from me, they are freaks, they are idiots, they are STUPID!!!

    You know what, Bobby, send a letter to terrorists! Or send mine contribution, if you choose. They are filthy animals, they are idiots, they are believers, and I have enough of this. And no, I am not from Norway. But I am from EU and I do not want those FUCKING idiots to come to my country, to threaten or killl my my son. If you believe in god, you are an imbecil (except for flying spaghetti monster that is), and you should move your self to another continent or even better another planet.

    Just go and be stupid somewhere else!

    • Sky says:

      You are exactly why Christians get so angry and bash us. We don’t need that here. Not all religious people are like that. If you are really so upset, insulting people is not the way to get your message across.

      “send a letter to terrorists!” – Bad idea. Sure way to get yourself killed.

      Terrorists and religious people are not the same thing. Yes, there are religious terrorists, but they aren’t following the true word of their books. They are deluded. There are atheist terrorists too. The only reason you don’t hear about that is because the media portrays Muslims as the only terrorists.

      • Guybrush Threepwood says:

        They are the same fucking thing. Religion is for idiots and terrorists are idiots. Simple. They believe in god and only an idiot can believe in god. What is your problem? There are no atheist terrorists. There is no reason. And no, I am not talking about muslims, I am talking about every idiot that believes in god. Especially monotheistic religions.

        • wulff says:

          Thank you for pointing out so concisely what I said on a previous thread. There are atheists who do not think that there is a god, and there are fundamentalist atheists just as extreme as the fundamentalist religious. You, sir, are clearly in the latter group.

          “Religion is for idiots and terrorists are idiots.” – Even if you accept that all religious people are idiots (which I do not for a second) and all terrorists are idiots (which is more likely) it does not equate that all religious people are terrorists or that all terrorists are religious. Trolls are idiots. People who text while driving are idiots. Using your logic, if I see people texting behind the wheel, I can assume they are religious terrorist trolls.

          “There are no atheist terrorists.” – What sources can you site to back up your statement? According to Wikipedia (I know, not the most reliable source of information but it was at hand) Timothy McVeigh, while raised Catholic, considered himself an agnostic. Also, I know of no examples of mainstream Buddhists being terrorists, so again your religious=terrorist analogy fails to hold.

          “There is no reason.” – Again, political motivations have been the justification for many acts or terror worldwide. Believing that the best way to change the system is to make people afraid to keep the system intact is the primary goal of terrorism, and that does not automatically mean religion is the motivator.

          “Especially monotheistic religions.” – Because we all know the Celts, the Romans, and the Vikings were such a peaceful people.

        • stylusmobilus says:

          I was going to mention McVeigh myself but you beat me to it.

        • Olio says:


          Texting behind the wheel is, sort of, terrorism. Considering that there is inattention to the roadway clearly implied and that vehicle the texter is manning is now a several ton weapon potentially (in event this lack of proper attention results in an accident directly) wherein harm can result. The threat is very real. Not meaning to have gone further off topic. But noted your mention of that and had to chime in.

      • Olio says:

        ‘there are religious terrorists but they are not following the true word of their books’

        There is probably room to differ on that subject but not being an expert in religious texts, am the wrong person to approach it any closer than to say that.

        • Olio says:

          ‘There are religious terrorists’

          A government just dispensed of a key figure in a nuclear weapons development complex in Iran. From a distance. To the people doing the dispensing, it is not considered terrorism but prevention of casualties through a strategic casualty. I have no idea of the political or religious affiliations of the people involved. To the people getting aimed at, it might have felt like terrorism. Don’t know, wasn’t there. To some extent, all war is terror. Killing is killing when it comes down to it at most basic level. This is not an op ed piece on war. Just an observation.

    • wulff says:

      Which “they” are you referring to? So far, this appears to be politically motivated, not religiously. This, on the surface, seems to be as related to a spiritual ideology as the Arizona shootings of Congresswoman Giffords and nine others, or Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing, which is to say, not at all.

      As soon as the news of the bombing broke, people (the general public, not necessarily law-enforcement) started looking for an Islamic connection. It has become too easy to say that any act of violence is the work of fundamentalist religions. Religion *may* give *some* an excuse to act out, but not all who act out are religious. These urges and impulses are part of the makeup of ALL humans to some degree, even if it’s just the urge to bitch-slap someone that pisses you off. Most people are able to release that aggression in harmless ways, or refocus it to positive outcome, but some cannot.

      A very dear friend of mine is a devout Christian who hopes to someday be a minister. Violence is so abhorrent to her that she cannot even watch the Harry Potter movies because there are fictional people being hurt. Why should she be tarred with the same brush you would use to tar Khomeni or bin Laden?

      • Guybrush Threepwood says:

        No no no! I am not talkking about muslims. I am talking about ANY religious being. Religion is for idiots. And they believe in shit and than they kill us. We should ban all religions, christian, muslim, jewish etc. I am an ATHEIST! I use my brains to think. They do not and they should be moved to an island, where they can bother each other but NOT us!

        • wulff says:

          Again, there is as yet no reason to connect the terror attack in Norway with ANY religious affiliation.

          Given that a majority of the planet’s population belongs to one religion or another, wouldn’t it be easier for *you* to leave than to try to relocate 6-billion people that make *you* uncomfortable?

          “I use my brains to think.” – Can you back up that claim? Because you are coming across as an extremist just as dangerous as those you would condemn.

        • m610 says:

          I disagree completely. Do not ban them. Get them to ban themselves, or rather, wake up. Religion is a delusion, not a crime.

        • Keith says:

          Banning things does not work. I live in a state in a country which loves banning all sorts of things. If a hang glider crashed into the roof of a house some politician is bound to get on the banned waggon and advocate doing away with hang gliding, private plane ownership and joyflights. Ban religion and it will have an immediate underground appeal.

        • Phea says:

          Wow, you have so much anger and hate… almost like a religious fanatic. Three things that have always plagued mankind, and always will. The necessity of greed, the enjoyment of cruelty, and by far the worst, the rigidity of opinion.

      • wulff says:

        I don’t really want this to devolve into a political thread, but I’m finding something truly disturbing on the news-boards that are covering this story.

        After reading the news coverage I tend to scroll down to look at the comments. More and more people are posting that if Norway didn’t have such strict gun laws, someone at the camp could have taken this guy down before the death toll got so high. This was a camp. Camps are made up of two main groups: kids and counselors.

        So who exactly do they want to be armed, the kids or the counselors?

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          wulff – I should know your country of origin from your posts, and truly apologize for not knowing. In the US, the issue you raised is *very* touchy, and there is bitter controversy over gun laws. Where I live, for example, it has been proposed that all college students should be armed on their campus. Your word “devolve” is overmild (“explode” or “deflagrate” are possibilities), although the Pastafarian community is likely more left-leaning as a whole (mebbe????). To respond to your question, I’d say that disarming whack jobs seems more palatable than arming everybody else to the teeth.

        • wulff says:

          Frederic, I am a Chicago-area native, and know just how touchy this is. I always responded to the “If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns” argument by saying “Yes, and then we’ll know who they are right away.”

          People keep saying, like in the AZ shootings, that if someone in the crowd had been armed the guy wouldn’t have done as much damage. Let me make a supposition. Let’s say that Tim pulls out a gun in a mall and starts shooting people at close range. Larry is standing a few feet away from Tim and, carrying a gun for ‘protection’, pulls it out and shoots Tim. Officer Henry, responding to the sound of gunfire, runs around the corner just in time to see Larry shoot Tim, but doesn’t see Tim’s gun. Seeing Larry standing there, gun drawn, with many people down on the floor shot, Officer Henry pulls his own weapon and shoots Larry. Anybody want to bet the cop gets all the heat on this one? More guns at a crisis, even in the hands of responsible people, will only increase the confusion and endanger more people.

          I am not against people owning guns if they are willing and able to be responsible with them. At the same time, nobody needs an armory in their home. How about this rule? If you want a handgun for personal or home protection, you are limited to a single six-shot revolver, and can only get bullets from the police department. If you need more bullets you have to account for the ones that you used. Does anybody outside of a drug kingpin really need a fully automatic assault rifle with cop-killer bullets for home defense?

          Sorry for the long rant. I’m on a personal quest to try to get this species to develop some common sense in my lifetime.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          wulff – a totally rational reply and, BTW, unqualified as a “rant”. we likely agree; a take only slightly oblique from yours would be that police are generally well trained and experienced (in the hardest job in the world), and nevertheless have difficulties and make mistakes. The thought of a shopping mall full of inexperienced, amateur “citizen policemen” does indeed kinda scare me. On the other hand, it’s not a bad bet to shoot somebody crawling thru your bedroom window or kicking down your front door. (That’s never happened to me, thank the FSM!) I’ve come to think that (with the obvious caveats…) everybody should put in some time in police training as an alternative to military training.

        • wulff says:

          “everybody should put in some time in police training as an alternative to military training” – reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Marge became a cop. There was a crazy guy at the academy wanting to know “When are we going to get our freaking guns?!” to which Chief Wiggum replies “You don’t get a gun until you tell me your name.” :)

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          LOL, ya got me!

    • wulff says:

      “But I am from EU and I do not want those FUCKING idiots to come to my country” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe

      According to this, France has the highest percentage of atheists in Europe, and that is only 33% of the population. So which idiots exactly are you referring to? If, as you claim, ALL religions are a threat to you, “they” are already there.

    • TiltedHorizon says:

      Guybrush, you have me concerned. My issue with your post is that it appears to be predicated on fear and generalizations. As a fellow Atheist let me make this resoundingly clear, you DON’T speak for me & you DON’T speak for the CoFSM.

      Fundamentalism is the worst form of ideology, Religious or Atheistic. Make no mistake; I consider your views extreme, in common with religious fanaticism making you equally intolerant and possibility dangerous to others.

      • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

        Agreed, TH. “Fundamentalist” to me means “my mind is totally closed to new ideas and even obvious facts”.

      • Wayne says:

        In regards to the banning of religion, Guybrush’s position is certainly not supported by the church. Hostility toward religious faiths is in no way part of the CotFSM, and in a free world can never be encouraged.

        You are wrong, Guybrush, and TH is correct in viewing that as extreme. If anything we should be looking to build bridges between religions and non believers to help stop fanaticism and misunderstanding. A wise bloke mentioned to me not so long ago that it would be a great thing if all religions could come together, and he is right, too. He’s a wise bloke because, as an atheist he has done much to bridge gaps between religions himself.

        I understand a lot of atheists take a non-tolerant line. I prefer to let religion be as long as it isn’t shoved in my face, because I believe religion does a lot of good in the world. I see your proposals as threatening, extreme and a denial of a person’s right to practice whatever religion they see fit. Getting rid of religion means getting rid of organisations like the Salvation Army alongside Hezbollah. I don’t see why they, or others like them should pay the penalty for the actions of other ‘faithful’, actions which they have no control over.

    • m610 says:

      G.T., I agree, but one must also act in accordance with one’s own principles. I would agree that tolerance is foolish and even stupid and even suicidal if what you are tolerating is out to kill/destroy you, and I think that would be a fair appraisal of fundamentalist Islam, and to a much lesser degree to fundamentalist Christianity, since the Enlightenment, except in Texas. I think it is time for a full frontal rebuttal to fundie Islam, a full court press. Force the moderates to speak up, to promote a more moderate, less murderous, version of Islam. And speak directly to the murderous elements of fundie Islam, to the point that we embarrass the moderate. Put the extremist cells out of business. But for that to happen we’d have to admit that as wonderful as openness and tolerance is, certain cultures/religions are simply incompatible with ours. Tolerance, in these cases, would be to let them do their own thing, in their own lands.

      It is amazing what you can get away with by playing the race, religion, or victim card.

    • opiesysco says:

      Guybrush, I do not believe you are who you say you are.
      You sound a lot like the anti-Big Guy which leads me to believe you are Big Guy
      just trying to start your shit again on this site.
      Please do not feed the trolls.

  8. midnight rider says:

    I’m just going to have to give that email a 3 out of a possible 10 points, David. It was really lacking in lulz and originality. Ok, except for the part where you say you are an atheist. That’s a different twist from the usual but it nullified your whole fake rant in my opinion.

Leave a Reply