The Flying Spaghetti Monster Goes Under the Knife

The Flying Spaghetti Monster Goes Under the Knife
click on image to enlarge

Poor Pastafarians…


25 thoughts on “The Flying Spaghetti Monster Goes Under the Knife

    1. tildeb, generalizations will get us far! Your comment would only hold true if all “faith-based beliefs” were the same and were all based on wishful thinking. JW Wartick is an evidentialist, which is pretty much the same category I’d put myself into. Evidence is an important part of faith for us and the two can’t be separated. But the same is not true of all religions. Why is that? Because Christianity is based on historical people and events, like the resurrection of Jesus. What is the flying spaghetti monster based on? Well, we know it is the creation of Bobby Henderson around 2005. We have positive evidence that it doesn’t exist.


      1. Just because the prophet Bobby Henderson (a very recent historical figure) revealed the existence of His Noddlyness as early as 2005 is not positive evidence that His Noodlyness doesn’t exist.

        You say you are an evidentialist? Then please, could you point me to the >extraordinary< evidence that demonstrates Jesus the cosmic carpenter is actually the avatar of the creator and manager of our universe? I think we would need more than some unverifiable testimonies written on ancient scribblings to REALLY believe in something like THAT, don't you think?

        I'd love to believe in Jesus/Yahweh but alas, even if there was evidence for his "miracles" that doesn't mean he created the universe.


      2. In the immortal words of John Warwick Montgomery: “Claiming something is not the same as demonstrating it.”

        If you want to put the FSM on the same level as Jesus, you’ve got your work cut out for you. Given your mischaracterization of the texts of the New Testament, I can see that you’re probably not here to discuss anything, right?

        Given that I’ve been both wrong and surprised
        before, I’ll ask you to tell us what you would find as acceptable evidence for the claims of Christianity.



      3. “Claiming something is not the same as demonstrating it.”

        Yet that is precisely what you’ve done here.

        Instead of simply posting a crude cartoon, why don’t you complement it with a piece where you explain why His Noodliness is a “false analogy” compared to your god Yahweh?

        “what you would find as acceptable evidence for the claims of Christianity?”

        Maybe have the guy materialize in front of me, tell me he is Jesus/Yahweh and that he created the universe, and then take me on an amazing journey through time and space to prove to me he did what he did. He could take me to the time of his crucifiction, then we could travel to parts of the universe light years beyond Earth and take some pictures for scientists to check out… he could show me if there are other life forms in the universe he created after all! We could even go and have some Pizza in year 10473 to see how Earth will look like at that time.

        That could still be the work of an unknown alien force or whatever… but extraordinary evidence like this would most likely make me believe. But I would still not worship him, because of the megalomaniacal immoral monster he is.

        You think this is just ridiculous and a joke… but why? Why would something like this be ANY trouble for the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, specially if he wants to have a relationship with me? He can easily do something like this for ALL people out there. If he did, there would be no apologists, and there would be no atheists… only “heathens”.

        In theory, your god knows exactly what is the kind of extraordinary evidence that would make me believe in him… yet he is not willing to give it to me. What bizzare pointlessness, don’t you think?

        So… yeah. Something extraordinary like that would make me believe in the extraordinary claims of Christianity, not ancient scribblings.


      4. “Instead of simply posting a crude cartoon, why don’t you complement it with a piece where you explain why His Noodliness is a ‘false analogy’ compared to your god Yahweh?”

        Please read the About section on my blog to find out why I don’t.

        Besides, it’s easy to see how inadequate and ridiculous the analogy is. For starters, find one person who actually believes in the FSM.

        Well, I’m not going to waste time responding to the ill-informed, cynical rant you wrote. A person who can’t recognize that creation around them has a Creator is suffering from a sort of mental condition and living in a state of denial that a reasoned argument filled with facts isn’t going to be able to cure.

        Move along. This isn’t the blog you’re looking for…



      5. “A person who can’t recognize that creation around them has a Creator …”

        Argument from intuition. Got it.

        “is suffering from a sort of mental condition and living in a state of denial that a reasoned argument filled with facts isn’t going to be able to cure.”

        I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror (and this very blog) before writing a comment like that. You know, because of the sheer irony of it :D


      6. As much as I’d like to respond in-depth to the Pee-wee Herman-esque I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I tactic you’ve displayed here, I’m not. It’s a waste of your time and mine. I’d much rather be doing a myriad of other things on my extensive to-do list. Interacting with people who have no apparent aim other than that of possibly wasting somebody else’s time with fluff and silliness is nowhere on that list. Sorry, man.

        Bye now!



  1. This cartoon falls flat because the kernel of truth that is FSM has eluded you.

    Instead of saying something, you’re just demonstrating that the FSM joke remains on you


    1. You have a talent of saying and drawing things that demonstrate your inability to grasp complex and even obvious ideas. I think that you just lucked out on that one that I found funny.

      The kernel of truth in the FSM is that the FSM as the exact same evidence as your god: none at all.


      1. Thanks!

        I appreciate your honesty as far as your opinion goes. But is English your first language? Do you understand the phrase “false analogy”?

        You’re just trying to get attention and draw me into a fruitless discussion, which, honestly speaking, I don’t think you’ve prepared for.

        Have a nice dayh!


  2. the problem is not what a false analogy is

    but that you are unwilling to understand that the FSM analogy is on point

    there is the same evidence for all religions claims: none at all.


    1. I see. I’m trying to be friendly and to help you by telling you that that to lump all religious claims into one phrase (evidence = “none at all”) is not just careless, it’s ridiculous. And doing so shows that you may have no real interest in any sort of meaningful dialog or interaction. I now know that.

      If, for some reason, you’d ever like another response from me in this thread, answer these questions (enigmatic sentences don’t count):

      1) Name one religious text you have read all the way through.

      2) Have you read the New Testament?

      3) What do you do with the credible, reliable historical records about Jesus outside the New Testament?

      4) What evidence would “prove” God exists?

      NOTE: By the way, I meant to tell you that I wasn’t trying to insult you earlier. Your screen name is unusual, so I genuinely wasn’t sure if English was your first language and whether or not that was one of the causes of the misunderstanding.


    1. 1) Can you prove it? Otherwise, I’ll have to take your word for it.
      2) Can you prove it? Otherwise, I’ll have to take your word for it.
      3) Opinion and unsubstantiated assertion. (I like Price and his writing style, but he’s hardly a reliable source, even by his own standards. For evidence: reference his debate with James White and his own estimation of himself and his work).
      4) Interesting link. Thanks.

      It would be nicer to hear your own personal perspectives, instead of being sent a series of links.


  3. I already played one round of hoop jumping, I’m not playing 2.

    You asked, I answered.

    I provided links as a short cut, because getting sucked into detail discussions is neither here not there when the basic premise remains unsound.


    1. Well, thanks. You’re claim that the theist position is “unsound” is a bit curious. I guess a series of random chemical reactions spontaneously forming in the mind of a randomly evolved piece of matter in a meaningless, purposeless universe are much more sound. I will take note.

      If a person is going to turn their nose up at 27 historical documents from the first century and then claim there is “no evidence” for Christianity, they are not only willingly ignorant, but disingenuous. The New Testament is full of historical references, which beg to be verified, especially the gospel of Luke and the Acts. So I challenge you to read the gospel of Luke and the Acts (again) and investigate the claims of Jesus in them.

      The goal here is to get you to reconsider your premature burial of the Bible.


      1. that the bible texts mention real places and even real people

        does not prove the claims of the bible as true

        anymore than a tv show set in a real city with real public figures mentions is true


  4. NAA, you are aware that the probability of you existing is calculated to be in the vicinity of 1 in 10 raised to the power of 2,685,000, right? Obviously these odds are so incredibly slim as to be ridiculous to even consider. I mean, really… your claim to exist is absurd… mathematically speaking. To explain your presence, then, any reasonable person should turn to the much more probable POOF! factor; that you were POOF!ed into existence fully formed by a magical creator. Phew! There. I’m glad I got to the bottom of THAT iddy biddy problem of statistical improbability in such a logical and rational way… through my belief in the reality of POOF!ism.

    So many questions, one stout answer! And I feel so much better informed for this ‘other way of knowing’.


    1. Does it matter? Honestly? Of course not. The point is that you utilize only what you think best supports your beliefs and reject all else because you decide they aren’t up to your critical standards even when they deal with exactly the same reasoning you have used prior in support. Your exchange with Random Ntyrrg shows clearly that you simply don’t care about his answers that you demand from him because those answers, like anyone else who doesn’t agree with your conclusions, are inherently insufficient in your mind. But lost in your demanding are the legitimate points raised, which you simply dismiss out of hand by asking more questions. Hence the honest charge of Hoop Jumping. This tactic of yours hardly polishes your intellectual honesty which you seem to have relegated to some other plane of existence when you speak about what informs your faith.


      1. tildeb, feel free to leave comments in the future, but I’m not going to be personally responding to them anymore. I don’t have the time and I’ve lost the interest in trying to understand a person who expresses so little genuine concern or interest in anyone or anything but themselves.

        So let me just say this: The thread started off with accusations that I didn’t understand the “greatness” of the FSM analogy. It was said “[t]he kernel of truth in the FSM is that the FSM as the exact same evidence as your god: none at all.” The claim was restated later on and then altered to include not just “[my] god” but then included “all religious claims”. Apparently, you support and promote such uninformed and ridiculous claims, so I’ll leave it for you to defend. When someone wants to make themselves an authority on something (in this case, religious claims), I like to get a little information to help me put their opinions in context. That’s why I asked questions. Now, I’m going to pose some questions to you to establish whether or not the FSM is a good analogy and then you can think on your own:

        1) Name one person who legitimately believes in the existence of the FSM. (That it is an actual entity that is responsible for anything.)
        2) Tell us when and where the concept of the Flying Spaghetti Monster originated.
        3) Tell us the motive behind the invention of FSM.
        4) Tell us of one historical claim attributed to FSM.

        Your persistent claims to intellectual superiority and honesty are no longer amusing, but old and boring. You can’t pretend to comprehend things in a meaningless universe, no more than you can see a flower in a Pollock painting. Any resemblance to truth is merely a projection of your mind, in a materialist universe, and any behavior is merely a preference, no better or worse than any other. It’s just interesting to see that the theist “preference” seems to upset you and those like you. But you do pretend to care very well that things actually matter.

        And the reason I asked whether or not you did the calculation yourself is to see whether or not you did or if you just took someone’s word for it. I guess it was the latter; maybe you saw the figure in an atheist apologist’s book, thought it would prove a point, and then left it in a message here. The only thing it showed was that when you had the means to prove a simple claim, you apparently didn’t do it. (Maybe you did.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s