Pastafarians Marching For Science — Contradiction?

Published April 24th, 2017 by Bobby Henderson

Congratulations and thanks to everyone who took part in the March For Science Rally. I’m relieved to see democracy in action by a sensible group of people.

Even though we Pastafarians are skeptical of “science” and “logical conjecture based on evidence”, we respect the idea of science – its search for knowledge – and we admire the people who dedicate their lives to the cause.

How then is it not a contradiction for Pastafarians, a faith-based group, to support science, or at least support scientists?

We Believe an all-mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster alters the universe in a way that makes it *appear* that the scientific method is sound, that humanity’s knowledge and its advancement out of caves and into spaceships is a direct result of this process. It appears that we can deductively infer conclusions through experiment and reason.

We can’t fault Scientists who have not yet seen the Light – they are doing their jobs, and they are intellectually honest. The same can not be said for some groups, including many groups who have a Belief structure that stems from faith.

So why is Pastafarianism correct, when it sometimes contradicts reason? Because the FSM says so, and we Believe1.

1. Circular Logic is allowed in religion.

Note — the FSM was spotted in Greenville, North Carolina — article here.

99 Responses to “Pastafarians Marching For Science — Contradiction?”

  1. ErlindaSim says:

    I would quite appreciate being notified of these events beforehand

  2. ErlindaSim says:


  3. LOAN says:


    We offer flexible loans and funding for various projects.This loan allows client to enjoy payback for as low as % interest We can approve a loan/cash for up to USD 500,000,000.00 or more depending on the amount you want for your business. We are currently funding for: *Business Expansion * Commercial Real Estate project * Personal loan and business loan are open to having a good business relationship with you, please do not hesitate to contact us:

    WEBSITE: http://www.indbullsfin.com/index.pyc
    [email protected]
    Contact us on whatspp +447513195409
    Mr Osman Ibrahim

  4. Osman Ibrahim says:

    Do you need a financial help? Are you in any financial crisis or do you need funds to start up your own business? Do you need funds to settle your debt or pay off your bills or start a good business? Do you have a low credit score and you are finding it hard to obtain capital services from local banks and other financial institutes? Here is your chance to obtain a
    financial services from our company. We offer the following finance to individuals-
    *Commercial finance
    *Personal finance
    *Business finance
    *Construction finance
    *Business finance And many More:
    and many more at 2% interest rate;
    Contact Us Via Email:[email protected]

  5. Bill says:

    The marches for science are linking the entire scientific establishment into the biggest hoax in living memory. When it becomes apparent, to even the most stupid, that man-made CO2 has not caused catastrophic climate change; the entire scientific establishment will be discredited and the way will be clear for the masses to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      So gratifying (interpreting Bill’s comments as arch sarcasm) that communicant’s priorities are fighting the absurd antiscientific stance of fundies of all stripes, their attempts to justify “persecution” claims, and their attempts to force their theology and morals down other’s throats. More important by far than responding to troll (aperture – well said, Kekka / sphincter) insults….

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Yeah, Bill, the only problem with toxic smog is that Creationists want their pseudoscience to be considered equal to science.

        • theFewtheProudtheMarinara says:

          I think it’s hilarious how the Creationists claim that we couldn’t have just arose from nothing. I ask them “And what did you Creator make the universe out of?” and of course, what was the Creator made out of?

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Gee, Cap’n B., I feel silly – really thought he was kidding…

        • Bill says:

          If you have toxic smog you really should be doing something about that.

          One of the many problems with the scare stories about CO2 is that it is taking effort away from tackling real pollution. Indeed it sometimes increases pollution, consider the diesel car fiasco; for decades governments encouraged diesel because it releases less CO2 that petrol, now they have realised that diesel releases more of other things, which may actually be harmful.

          It pains me to see an organisation that was created to oppose one form of bogus science, become cheerleaders for another.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Bill, do you have a doctorate in climatology, or, a related experimental science subject? Unless you are qualified, or quoting the consensus opinion of experimental scientists, your assertion of what is a ‘bogus science’ is worth less than the electrons you have used.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          tFtPtM, the impossible paradoxes of infinity, matter, time and space torment everyone, but, resolve when one uses Einstein’s Theories, which Creationists refuse to do. Torment them further with questions such as: ‘Did time exist before the Universe did’?
          Matter can come from nothing. Fortunately, the corresponding anti-matter is somewhere else. No god needed! Creationists expect whole objects to pop into existence.

        • Mr. Hankey says:

          There was no knowlege of nano-particles in diesel fumes at that time, and, the diesel engine is more efficient. Why would it not be promoted?
          Do you think that people should always avoid retrospective mistakes?

    • Mr. Hankey says:

      Bill, do you mean within the ‘living memory’ of a microbe? I have never seen the word ‘catastrophic’ linked with climate change.
      Discrediting one variable out of many, and inviting sensible people to avoid catastrophes, does not make pseudoscience less worthless.

      • Bill P says:

        Mr. Hankey

        By questioning the duration for which the hoax was the biggest you are agreeing that it is a hoax, welcome.

        Regarding the association of “catastrophic” and “climate change” http://www.letmegooglethat.com/?q=catastrophic+climate+change
        Also logically, why spend billions to prevent it if it is not catastrophic?

        There is plenty of nasty things in diesel exhausts other than poorly understood nano-particles.

        Apprentice Frederic

        Were all the people attending the marches for science so qualified, or do your rules only apply to people who disagree?

        How much knowledge does one need to notice that the grim predictions made in the 1990s have not come true? And how gullible do you need to be to believe the predictions the same people are making today?

        The other obvious issue is the way the alarmists try to prevent debate by concealing, or even destroying, raw data. That way I was taught it, an important part of science was having results replicated independently. The USA does seem to be trying to make the discussion more open, but we have yet to see if they will succeed.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Bill, informed/foggy/polite/militant participants evidently exist in all possible combinations…and on all sides….

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Bill, the mentioned microbe expired.
        We never established, in which direction and to whom, the ‘hoax’ applies. The idea of ‘Climate Change’, which challenges the comfortable thinking of several factions, including religious, has become a vote-winning political issue in some countries.
        The ancient biology of human ‘threat detection’ only registers fast-moving dangers: it is counter-intuitive to respond to slow-moving threats, such as pollution. More people die from the pollution associated with fossil fuel consumption than any other cause.
        Opinions from the 1990’s are long outdated. Individual discredited opinions do not affect the peer-reviewed current consensus. Outliers are ignored.
        If raw data has been destoyed, ignore that paper’s results and complain bitterly to the journal that published it.

  6. Apprentice Frederic says:

    Mr H, tFtPtM, Cap’n B., A single point to add to your excellent comments is simply that reliable indices of a poster’s lack of qualifications is, first, intemperate language, second, certainty in expression where none exists, and, finally, unwillingness to explicitly admit uncertainties and unknowns ….

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      AF, what I am learning most from contact with Creationists is that their claims are devoid of facts and rely solely on sophistry.
      The intention behind their attempts to discredit science is thinking it will somehow elevate their pseudoscience to be the correct and only alternative, which is a logical falacy (false dichotomy).

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        Fair and apt, Cap’n B

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      AF, when someone makes a factual assertion, it is normal practice to ask for their qualifications and/or references to reputable science journals.
      – No science journal has ever used the term ‘catastrophic’ with regard to Climate Change.
      – No national or international science body denies anthropogenic Climate Change, or, the impact of associated pollution.
      Expect to soon hear ‘Teach the Controversy’, when none exists.

      • Apprentice Frederic says:

        Cap”n B., I think my initial post must have come across as far more obnoxious then I intended and I’m certainly sorry for that. I think though that the criteria I suggested are quite consistent with the specifics that you noted….

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          AF, you are unable to offend me, so, please neither apologise nor hold back.
          The uncertainties regarding Climate Change are details. About one in a thousand qualified scientists dissent, meaning, the onus of proof is shifted onto Denialists.
          If you have waded through the unsupported assertions of Denialism, whether of the Holocaust, vaccination, evolution, Climate Change, etc. you may be aware of the same anti-science sophistry, hidden agendas and tired old logical fallacies that underpins all of them.
          I am off camping to a three day music festival….. Yay!

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Cap’n B., Enjoy!!!

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I can’t compete with the Epic Of Gnocchi, but, I got my 39-year-old wagon Land Cruiser camped for four days in a park in the town hosting the event. Tarpaulin to shield the Tropical Sun; trestle table, stove and deck chairs; friendly neighbours.
          Thanks to science, higher-tech this time: big Solar panel, compressor fridge and WiFi. Time for a low-tech cold beer.

      • Bill P says:

        Denier is an emotive term but everybody is denying the opposite of what they believe. You are denying natural climate change and I am a lot happier denying a theory that does not fit the facts than I would be denying nature.

        The facts are that contrary to the rapid warning that was predicted in the 90s there has been little or no warming this century; even though man made CO2 emissions have increased. Whereas the last century showed significant warming before man made CO2 could be a factor. So we know that natural warming can exceed the current rate of warming (assuming that honest data would show any warming).

        You want some scientific papers on factors other than man made CO2; have this lot: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/25/so-far-this-year-400-scientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/

        I tried to be humorous in my first post, but it is very serious that the man made climate change issue has shown that if you have enough money you can buy a lot of people with science qualifications. The longer the climate does not behave in accordance with this convenient lie, the more people will question science in general and we will see a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” situation. It is therefore urgent to disassociate science from the scaremongering.

        • Apprentice Frederic says:

          Cap’n B., you can surely, safely rest your case….

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Bill, whattsupwiththat is not a science journal. I found it a fifth-rate waste of my time and would never recommend it to anyone. It simply offers an opportunity for laymen to slag off any and all scientists for religious and political purposes.
          Because every single science journal and science body, domestic and international, agrees with anthropogenic Climate Change, it is impossible to provide government funding to any of them without scurrilous claims, from some groups, of self-serving interests.
          Thousands of reputable scientists would love to further their careers by finding fault in other’s research, but, it must be done with evidence and is the whole point of peer-review. Rhetoric is worthless in the sciences.
          I suggest that you find qualified scientists whose opinions you prefer and provide journal references to their research.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          AF, pseudosciences, and there are dozens of them, wish to persuade gullible people to buy into it. However, instead of providing evidence to support their claims, they try to drag science down, to have people believe they have a rational choice between two equal options. Social Media paid trolls are a new way of attempting to achieve this.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          …. Anyway, it’s been conclusively proved that it’s a reduction in the number of pirates that causes Global Warming, even if it doesn’t exist.

        • Bill says:

          If you had read the link I gave, you would know it references hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers.

          I just reasoned that it would be easer to give you the one link than cut and paste all the links.

          By the way, it is normal for whattsupwiththat to provide links to scientific papers.

        • Keith says:

          And here is Potholer54’s response:

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Bill, it would take decades to assess the journals’ total body of knowledge of a complex science, such as Climatology. That is what professors do. The majority of them concur, will be full aware of your references and will have cogent explanations for your concerns.
          I would not ask ‘a man at the pub’ for an opinion on religion, brain surgery or Climate Change, and expect a correct answer.
          Why don’t you enroll at university to become a climatologist?

        • BillP says:


          That video focuses on the over the top headline in Breitbart and its superficial analysis, not what I linked to.

          If you read the comments on the video you will see a link to a deconstruction by the man who compiled the lists Breitbart summarised. http://notrickszone.com/2017/11/02/deconstruction-of-the-critical-youtube-response-to-our-400-skeptical-papers-compilation/#sthash.1XiTkaG6.MIYpJsGj.dpbs)


          See my post on the alternative energy thread, the consensus among climate scientists if far from definite.

          I have recently retired, so I am not looking for another job, but I am taking an interest in the issues of the day.

  7. Fleming says:

    As much as I remember, I did share the event details on all the hacked snapchat accounts I have access to.

  8. Gnocchi Saint Pudding says:

    Dear Phil B, Your: ” ……if you have enough money you can buy a lot of people…”

    “Science seems to have taken a turn towards darkness ” (says Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, April 2O15.) ( In this case, medical science.)

    And Dr. David Klatzow, forensic scientist, Cape Town says: “And who can argue with that!”

Leave a Reply to Captain Birdseye