Church Of The Flying Spagheti Monster This is sooo cool

[Baniboy 3]

Okay... yestarday I was browsing the net and I found something really interesting.

The website of pastafarians.
Pastafarians worship a god that forms from noodles/spaghetti and two meatballs.

They also believe that in heaven, there's a lot of pubs and strip clubs, how fun! The whole idea started like this:

Somewhere in Kansas, some idiot wanted to teach people about the theory that explains why we are here. The theory explains it this way (squeezed in one sentence): That we were made by aliens(the intelligent design theory by it's real name..). Now that was so BS so a guy named "bobby" created the flying spaghetti monster.
After a while bobby sent this letter to the Kansas school board (shortened a little to be easier to read) :

(click the ""Open letter to kansas school board" to view the whole letter.) Open Letter To Kansas School Board I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I'm writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I'm sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Funny, ha?
But I think this bobby did the right thing, I don't even believe in god because of the lack of evidence, now iI have to believe in some stupid aliens with even less evidence? haha HELL NO!

anyway, that was how things got started... Now this has become the protest of the 10 MILLION noodlelovers against other religions.
Their website is here.

A part of their evidence is that the global warming is exactly linked to the amount of pirates on earth, the less pirates, the more hot it's gonna get. They've made image proving this.

Their website also has a hate mail section where they display all the hatemail they get, I recommend going there, you'll have a great laugh!
Edited January 31, 2009 by baniboy (see edit history)

[jlhaslip 4]

what's so funny about that site?We all need to believe in something, and I believe I'll have another Beer...

[mahesh2k 0]

That we were made by aliens(the intelligent design theory by it's real name..). Now that was so BS so a guy named "bobby" created the flying spaghetti monster.After a while bobby sent this letter to the Kansas school board (shortened a little to be easier to read) :

I think this is similar to that rael churches and religion. They believe that earth is experiment of some creators and we're experiments of some alien scientists.
Ha. Long live spaghetti Monster!!

[galexcd 0]

Hey, that religion is no laughing matter, in fact I'm a practicing Pastafarian. If anyone else insinuates that this religion is a joke I shall ask the mighty Flying Spaghetti Monster to smite that member with the His mighty noodley appendage.In the FSM's name. Ramen.

[truefusion 3]

I've caught FSMs before. After catching them i'd go inside and place them in boiling water, to serve to the family. I made sure to catch more than one for the following days. They're not that hard to catch once you get the hang of it. The trick is to use only organic pasta sauce—they can smell that stuff from a mile away. In fact, i didn't even have to leave my home to catch them. You see, they lack sweat glands and require a place to cool off and they only accept organic pasta sauce. Is like a pig and mud, only you can eat them while they place themselves in the "pond of pasta sauce," which i call a sauce pan. On good days, i throw a party and invite plenty of people. We have lots of fun. They enjoy watching me catch FSMs, and we share stories about our adventures with FSMs. Now, even though they have the word "monster" in their name, they don't normally come in that size, that's why you have to catch more than one if you're planning on feeding the family. However, my friend Bubba did catch a monster of a FSM. He took a picture of it and got in the book of Guinness World Records.I have pastafarians and noodlelovers come to my house all the time, preaching to quit eating their god. That's how i met Alex (galexcd). I think he was the only one out of all of them to actually profess to me that his god tastes good, especially with some salt and pepper. Oh, wait, did he tell me not to say that out loud? Oh well, i can't remember. Anyway, if you're ever around the neighborhood, i invite to stop by—we'll have lots of fun and catch lots of FSMs.

[Baniboy 3]

I've caught FSMs before. After catching them i'd go inside and place them in boiling water, to serve to the family. I made sure to catch more than one for the following days. They're not that hard to catch once you get the hang of it. The trick is to use only organic pasta saucethey can smell that stuff from a mile away. In fact, i didn't even have to leave my home to catch them. You see, they lack sweat glands and require a place to cool off and they only accept organic pasta sauce. Is like a pig and mud, only you can eat them while they place themselves in the "pond of pasta sauce," which i call a sauce pan. On good days, i throw a party and invite plenty of people. We have lots of fun. They enjoy watching me catch FSMs, and we share stories about our adventures with FSMs. Now, even though they have the word "monster" in their name, they don't normally come in that size, that's why you have to catch more than one if you're planning on feeding the family. However, my friend Bubba did catch a monster of a FSM. He took a picture of it and got in the book of Guinness World Records.
I have pastafarians and noodlelovers come to my house all the time, preaching to quit eating their god. That's how i met Alex (galexcd). I think he was the only one out of all of them to actually profess to me that his god tastes good, especially with some salt and pepper. Oh, wait, did he tell me not to say that out loud? Oh well, i can't remember. Anyway, if you're ever around the neighborhood, i invite to stop bywe'll have lots of fun and catch lots of FSMs.

SEE! FSM can feed people, christian god can't do that.

He made the mini FSMs to feed people with his noodly appendage.

But we also need a flying salad monster to get that healthy diet, you have to have half of the plate full of veggies you know.

So, you like to play on both sides truefusion? YOU eat his creations without even worshiping Him... Shame on you! How dare you?!
Mini-FSMs are for poor people that don't have money to buy pasta from shops or make them theirselves! And you catch them and throw a gigantic party?!!!

I'll pray for you to His Noodly Appendage. I hope you find your salvation and come to heaven to enjoy our nice beer volcano and stripclubs!

[truefusion 3]

SEE! FSM can feed people, christian god can't do that.
He made the mini FSMs to feed people with his noodly appendage.

But we also need a flying salad monster to get that healthy diet, you have to have half of the plate full of veggies you know.

So, you like to play on both sides truefusion? YOU eat his creations without even worshiping Him... Shame on you! How dare you?!
Mini-FSMs are for poor people that don't have money to buy pasta from shops or make them theirselves! And you catch them and throw a gigantic party?!!!

I'll pray for you to His Noodly Appendage. I hope you find your salvation and come to heaven to enjoy our nice beer volcano and stripclubs!

Actually, i already ate the big boss FSM a few years back, so "he" can't be the creator of FSMs—after all, you implied that "he" created "himself" with "his noodly appendage," but we all know self-creation is illogical. I caught "him" by accident when i was figuring out new ways to catch FSMs. "He" was more nutritious than "his" smaller parts—but that should have been expected. I'm not going to give away my secret, though, on how to catch the real good FSMs. I use other methods when displaying my FSM-capturing talents to those at the FSM parties i throw, which is enough to keep themselves fed. The people i invite to these FSM feasts that i ordain are not limited to friends and family, they include homeless people from the streets. So, yes, they are for poor people too. A nice, big pan of organic pasta sauce, and these FSMs come in the herds—i could feed the whole block. But since more than what we can normally handle come along, what do i do with them? I opened up an all-you-can-eat FSM restaurant. I have more than enough money for retirement. I started an institution on researching FSM. We're working towards whole grain FSMs—we can't be havin' these simple carbs all the time. I'm currently working on a book called "Fishing for FSMs." It's half a cook book and half a guide to being successful in hunting FSMs. I recommend you getting yourself a copy once it's published—there's very good information on the nature of FSMs and good health tips on healthy FSM dieting. For other information relating to FSMs, you can visit my website at http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ and you'll find just about anything and everything on FSMs. Good luck to you and happy FSM fishing.

[Baniboy 3]

Actually, i already ate the big boss FSM a few years back, so "he" can't be the creator of FSMsafter all, you implied that "he" created "himself" with "his noodly appendage," but we all know self-creation is illogical.

I would ban you if I were you, you're insulting me
You can't eat the REAL FSM 'cause HE is in another dimension, the dimension of beer.

As for the self-creation being illogical, well tell me, how your christian god is logical? "he" just popped out of nowhere? Who created your god or how the hell did he get the title of "god"?

[truefusion 3]

You can't eat the REAL FSM 'cause HE is in another dimension, the dimension of beer.

That's why it took a ritual (which occurred by accident) to bring "him" out. :9

As for the self-creation being illogical, well tell me, how your christian god is logical? "he" just popped out of nowhere? Who created your god or how the hell did he get the title of "god"?

My God is logical because He did not create Himself—He always existed. If you find the phrase "always existed" illogical, then life itself is illogical. For if it came from nothing without divine intervention, then it basically caused its own existence. But if self-causation is illogical, then we are left with two choices: either God created it, or the universe always existed. If science has evidence that suggests that it didn't always exist, then we are left with one choice: God created it. The term "God" is a being that can create things, not merely manipulate things—humans manipulate what already exists. In order to be able to create this universe, it obviously requires a large amount of intelligence and power. Omnipotence is that which there is nothing greater than. Since there is nothing greater than God, everything is below Him, therefore He is not restricted to anything. That means time is below Him. Anything restricted by time has had a beginning. This in turn implies that He is omnipresent. Since He created all matter, He in turn is omniscient, bearing knowledge of everything. Therefore, God meets everything that is expected of His qualities. This should pretty much answer your question.

[galexcd 0]

Oh no, I smell a holy war on the horizon... If we are going to start getting serious about belief's I'll have to bring out my agnostic bible and preach to you about the real true "God", known as "God?"...

Let me recite from the book of Uncertainty 5:26

[26] And so God? said to the Romans,

Go forth and claim this land in the

name of God?.

[27] And thou shalt live in Eternal Salvation?.

In all seriousness now...

The truth is it is impossible for anyone to know the truth as long as they are living on this planet. This includes believers and non-believers. How can both of you be so sure that what you believe is true? You most certainly cannot. Those who believe, I respect for having faith in something they have never experienced. Those who don't believe, I understand what you must think. But the truth is nobody knows, so why must people argue about this. Wars fought over religion is the most inane thing that human beings do.

Edited February 2, 2009 by galexcd (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

The truth is it is impossible for anyone to know the truth as long as they are living on this planet. This includes believers and non-believers. How can both of you be so sure that what you believe is true? You most certainly cannot. Those who believe, I respect for having faith in something they have never experienced. Those who don't believe, I understand what you must think. But the truth is nobody knows, so why must people argue about this.

Logic may not necessarily be good at pointing out what is true, but it does a rather good job at pointing out what is false. For example: if the truth is impossible for anyone to know, then how can you state that that is the truth? So how can you be so certain of your own statement? Obviously our beliefs come from personal experiences—it's even implied in your beginning statement. So what kinds of knowledge are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a posteriori knowledge. So how can there be two contradictory experiences (even though you say believers have never experienced what they believe in, even though experience is what caused many of them to believe in the first place; and assuming unbelievers experienced atheism, if at all possible)? Since logic is useful at determining what is false, we use it therefore. People like to think themselves as seekers of truth, that is why debates form. If we eliminate all falsehoods, then we get closer to the truth. Because of their experiences, people will yield towards what they find to be true. But which side is closer to the truth? Due to ignorance, we are not capable of denying every single possible god. Although not being able to deny a god doesn't mean they exist, it's not logical, therefore, to try and continue to deny the existence of all kinds of gods. Atheism denies even impersonal gods. It is obvious through logic that this denial is faith-based. As it has been discussed earlier in this topic, self-causation is illogical, therefore something either always existed or was caused into existence. Science has become to be known as the "seeker of truth." So if there is evidence that suggests that matter did not always exist, belief in a god becomes more justified. We also know whatever ceases to exist cannot have always existed (even if it existed for a pretty long time). The truth is nobody knew a lot of things and a lot of us still don't know a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we still don't know about what we didn't know back then. If we don't know, perhaps time will help. It is written that Christ will come a second time while we are still on this planet. Indeed, all we need is time.

[Baniboy 3]

Logic may not necessarily be good at pointing out what is true, but it does a rather good job at pointing out what is false. For example: if the truth is impossible for anyone to know, then how can you state that that is the truth? So how can you be so certain of your own statement? Obviously our beliefs come from personal experiences?it's even implied in your beginning statement. So what kinds of knowledge are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a posteriori knowledge. So how can there be two contradictory experiences (even though you say believers have never experienced what they believe in, even though experience is what caused many of them to believe in the first place; and assuming unbelievers experienced atheism, if at all possible)? Since logic is useful at determining what is false, we use it therefore. People like to think themselves as seekers of truth, that is why debates form. If we eliminate all falsehoods, then we get closer to the truth. Because of their experiences, people will yield towards what they find to be true. But which side is closer to the truth? Due to ignorance, we are not capable of denying every single possible god. Although not being able to deny a god doesn't mean they exist, it's not logical, therefore, to try and continue to deny the existence of all kinds of gods. Atheism denies even impersonal gods. It is obvious through logic that this denial is faith-based. As it has been discussed earlier in this topic, self-causation is illogical, therefore something either always existed or was caused into existence. Science has become to be known as the "seeker of truth." So if there is evidence that suggests that matter did not always exist, belief in a god becomes more justified. We also know whatever ceases to exist cannot have always existed (even if it existed for a pretty long time). The truth is nobody knew a lot of things and a lot of us still don't know a lot of things, but that doesn't mean we still don't know about what we didn't know back then. If we don't know, perhaps time will help. It is written that Christ will come a second time while we are still on this planet. Indeed, all we need is time.

So logic CAN prove what is false eh?

So logic proves that god doesn't exists ( and a bunch of other things).

 

You're talking about "he has always existed" which is even more illogical than something created him.

When you look back in the history, you see all the people trying to explain the world, all failing. It's time to move on, now we can prove evolution, we can explain a lot of things. You can't discover new things when you think it's impossible, when you think that a "holy" book has already explained it.

 

Same thing with the Big Bang, scientist say that it just happened, I don't think so. The theory is of self-creation, like the big bang just popped out of nowhere like christian god or any other gods in any other "one god centered" religions.

 

When i ask you to explain how this "god has always existed" is possible you'll just probably answer that it is beyond human undrestanding or some other mysterious sentence.

 

Logic thinking also shows that you must not believe in something that you have no prove of.

Show me your evidence, not the bible, the evidence that anyone can't just write what he wants. Bible isn't even written by Jesus himself.

 

Christianity is no more right than Islam or the Jews or any other religions.

 

Like I said, it's time to move on, not make stuff up anymore but collect the evidence and analyze them and THEN make the conclusion.

[truefusion 3]

So logic CAN prove what is false eh?

Correct, assuming it's not fallacious.

 

So logic proves that god doesn't exists ( and a bunch of other things).

I wouldn't say that. Logic is too ignorant to do so.

 

1. You're talking about "he has always existed" which is even more illogical than something created him.

 

2.1. When you look back in the history, you see all the people trying to explain the world, all failing. It's time to move on, 2.2. now we can prove evolution, we can explain a lot of things. 3. You can't discover new things when you think it's impossible, when you think that a "holy" book has already explained it.

 

4. Same thing with the Big Bang, scientist say that it just happened, I don't think so. The theory is of self-creation, like the big bang just popped out of nowhere like christian god or any other gods in any other "one god centered" religions.

This is entirely non-sequitur.

 

[1] If you find something "always existing" illogical, look at your statement which i have labeled number 4 for referencing purposes (i.e. i won't be responding to number 4, as this response is enough to cover both). The Big Bang without God would be self-causation. If there is no Big Bang, then things weren't brought into existence. If they weren't brought into existence and if they exist today, then they must have existed forever if there is no god. You have placed yourself within a dilemma that can only be explained if you bring in a Creator. Your statement implies the universe always existed. But since something "always existing" is illogical to you, then it must have either been caused by an outside force or it brought itself into existence. Since self-causation is illogical since it implies that the object pre-existed before its existence, the only other option you are left with is an outside cause. And since you find "always existing" illogical, this outside cause would have to have its own outside cause, therefore you would run into another dilemma, an infinite regression. Therefore, what's more logical?

 

[2.1] This statement of yours contradicts the statement which i marked as 2.2. Either we always fail at explaining things or we succeed plenty of times—you can't have both. "All failing" encompasses every explanation. If it encompasses all explanations, then the theory of evolution is one of them.

 

[3] It may depend on what this "new thing" is. But, yes, if an explanation is already sustained, everyone, regardless of religion, will adhere to that explanation.

 

When i ask you to explain how this "god has always existed" is possible you'll just probably answer that it is beyond human undrestanding or some other mysterious sentence.

No, i have already explained how, in more ways than one. You can follow the logic again.

 

Logic thinking also shows that you must not believe in something that you have no prove of. Show me your evidence, not the bible, the evidence that anyone can't just write what he wants. Bible isn't even written by Jesus himself.

Due to the implications that come from this objective form of evidence, i would prefer to refrain from providing it. However, i'll inform you about it anyway, about a specific prophesy that came true that cannot be argued, "Ah, they read it, therefore they wrote it—it didn't happen," which is an argument unbelievers use when believers state that the New Testament is proof for the Old Testament. The verse (or prophecy) i speak of is Isaiah 9:6. The words i emphasize is "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father." So what's so important about these words? In Biblical times, one knew that a prophecy came from God if it wasn't derived from human understanding. This verse is alluding to Christ Jesus. The words i emphasize is mere blasphemy according to the Jewish religion, since it is calling a man the Mighty God. This shows that it couldn't have come from human understanding. These (or at least one of these) phrases weren't used until about 400 or more years after Christ (the other happening some time after), which was derived from the New Testament—of which there was no way for the Jews to predict through human understanding that a new and accepted-by-God religion would come from Judaism, since the Messiah was just another prophet to them, and all the true prophets, based on their history, never brought about a new religion. Only the false prophets brought about new religions, but these were all condemned by the true prophets. Therefore human understanding would show that any new religion would ultimately be condemned by God if it brought in a new god in the form of creation—in this case, man. But back to the words i emphasize: Who are these people that call(ed) Christ Jesus "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father." Trinitarians call Jesus the former; Oneness Pentecostals call Jesus the latter; the Doctrine of the Trinity rejects the latter. These denominations fulfill this prophecy.

 

Like I said, it's time to move on, not make stuff up anymore but collect the evidence and analyze them and THEN make the conclusion.

You're begging the question, but you may analyze and collect the evidence i have provided, and perhaps move on.

[miladinoski 1]

truefusion, I have one simple question I want you to answer to me.If god is omniscient and omnipotent (he knows everything - either future or past or whatever) and all that stuff that is saint and belongs to a god, he knew what would happen every moment and he knew that the people would be doing right in this moment. He knew that his presence would be doubted and things like that.Why did he then create them and put them in the garden? What was his goal?I also don't want answers like "beyond human understanding" or "we shouldn't know that yet" or other dubious sentences.

[truefusion 3]

If god is omniscient and omnipotent (he knows everything - either future or past or whatever) and all that stuff that is saint and belongs to a god, he knew what would happen every moment and he knew that the people would be doing right in this moment. He knew that his presence would be doubted and things like that.
Why did he then create them and put them in the garden? What was his goal?

You already asked me that in another topic, and i already responded to you in that other topic. I wouldn't change my response, as i currently see no reason to. So rather than repeating myself here, you can traverse your posts to where you last asked me that question.