PLEASE NOTE: 2025 is my tenth consecutive year of analysing a book of scripture central to a religion. Before The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I absorbed the teachings of The Quran (Islam - 2016), The Satanic Bible (LaVeyan Satanism - 2017), Dianetics (Scientology - 2018), The Bible (Christianity - 2019), The Book Of The Law (Thelema - 2020), the Tao Te Ching (Taoism - 2021), The Corpus Hermeticum (Hermeticism - 2022), and The Secret Doctrine (Theosophy - 2023), and The Kitáb-i-Aqdas (Baháʼí Faith, 2024). Check them all out, and you will be different for it.
As this is my 10th year reading and analysing a religion's scripture, I felt I had some leeway in choosing something sillier this round as a little treat. I decided on Pastafarianism's The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because it may very well be the silliest "holy book" available. However, upon completion, there was an overwhelming sense that I had cheated the system, and my long line of study had been tarnished by something so intentionally ridiculous.
In an attempt to rectify my alignment, I widened the overall topic to cover atheism as a whole, which made sense because Pastafarianism is essentially a parody religion embraced by atheists. To deepen my education would mean finding another sacred scripture applicable to the (non)belief system, which, of course, by its very nature, cannot exist. Then again, if there ever was an argument to be made, it came with Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, which might not be holy in any literal sense, but is often treated as such by the atheist community.
While I'm sure many a bookshelf has these two publications sat snuggly together, they are still vastly different works in both content and intention, which is why I could not comfortably merge my investigation into a unified presentation. Hence, I shall address them one at a time, with Pastafarianism first, then Dawkins second. Following this will be a much more in-depth breakdown of the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because, at the end of the day, it's still sacred scripture, depending on who you speak to.
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Like any "religion" worth its seasoning, Pastafarianism (or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) has a human prophet. His name is Bobby Henderson. Unlike so many other theologies, he is provably real as a former physics student at Oregon State University.
His story begins in 2005. The Kansas State Board of Education announced that intelligent design (i.e. God created the Universe) would be taught alongside evolution to satisfy everyone's beliefs. Henderson opposed religion infiltrating government schools and explained as much to the board in an open letter. When he did not receive a reply, Henderson posted the letter on the internet, and, due to its hilariously imaginative content, it landed in the right place at the right time, and its popularity exploded beyond anyone's reasonable expectations. Still, looking back at it now, the virality potential was undeniable.
Henderson announced that he believed in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is an invisible and undetectable deity who, during an intense drinking session, created the Universe. It's an amusingly simple concept with profound philosophical consequences. As many have pointed out, Henderson merely offered a variation of Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, whereby anyone can claim that a tiny teapot is currently floating in space orbiting the Sun. According to Russell, it should be up to the individual who made the teapot claim to prove its existence, rather than requiring those who argue against the teapot to disprove it. This notion obviously translates to the God vs non-God dispute. Consequently, if a religion's primary evidence is through the religion itself, then any alternate belief should be considered equally verifiable.
This little teapot has laid the foundations for several parody theologies, such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn (a goddess, whom we must trust is pink because of our faith) and Last Thursdayism (which states that reality itself only persists for a week as a test for you, while your every memory is pre-programmed and all your so-called friends are in on it). What makes these theories so wonderful is that they are as scientifically sound as any Abrahamic God, which was exactly Bobby Henderson's launching point. If he believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator of our world, then why isn't he treated the same as other religious students? In the spirit of dogmatic equality, shouldn't his God be taught in schools too?
Once the internet got hold of this idea, it did what the internet always does: pushed the doctrine beyond the extremities of reason. With millions of clicks came millions of lightbulbs, and a cultural phenomenon exploded forth. The list of notable developments is extensive, from merch to marches to art to a comedy theatre production, all the while, everyone had only one question: Is this actually a religion? Or is it a satirical joke?
The answer is not that straightforward and depends on the individual. For many, the underlying validity is irrelevant; people should be allowed to worship however they choose without interrogation. The documentary I, Pastafari details the political campaign behind the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, where adherents seek the same legal privileges and tax exemptions as other major religions. Make no mistake, these followers are very serious about not being serious, because in their eyes, something as ridiculous as religion can only be overpowered by something equally ridiculous.
The rich sauce of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's concept has blessed us with numerous strings of talking points, but for me, nothing is funnier than the colander movement. In response to permitted religious headwear in ID photos, Pastafarians began donning pasta strainers as hats for their driving license photos. The vast majority of these attempts were rejected, but surprisingly, in some cases, it was legally granted. Again, it's easy to brush these off as foolish nonsense or even offensive attacks. But they bring about real conversations concerning applicable ideology in our modern era.
With the pasta flapping about across the world, eventually Bobby Henderson stepped back into the spotlight. Perhaps he felt obliged to clarify some details or attempt to unify the spaghetti strands into one bowl. Or perhaps the $80,000 advance from Villard Publishing had something to do with it. Either way, in 2006, Pastafarianism finally received the treatment all religions deserve: its very own sacred scripture, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
When my copy arrived in the mail, I was already in hysterics before even opening it. On the front cover of the book was a picture of a book. Said book was The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with its own cover design, but rather than using that design, they used an image of the book itself. It made me feel weird, which was a fantastic starting point for the hilarity up ahead. That said, while comedy is undoubtedly the main flavouring, the message is not as bluntly stupid as you might think.
For starters, Pastafarianism may be championed as some atheistic counterargument to the existence of God, but it is more accurately an agnostic philosophy. This is further solidified with Henderson himself, who was quoted as saying, "If there is a god and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humour". Such a stance of uncertainty is far from the rigidity of atheism, and this book bends in whatever direction, just like any well-cooked pasta should.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is proposed as a full-fledged deity, a replacement for the traditional God. This in itself does not make a case against creationism but actually perpetuates it through the satire. Evolution and science are seen as faulty teachings, placed here by the Flying Spaghetti Monster to test us.
Perhaps I seek too deeply, but I caught frequent underlying tones which made some serious cases in the quantum mysticism vein. For one example, the belief that evolution is "guided by his noodly appendages" creates a platform for science and the supernatural to coexist, which is a common stance among modern spiritual thinkers. Another example is where this Gospel states that every time we measure carbon-dating, the Flying Spaghetti Monster meddles with the results to ensure we do not discover the truth. This echoes the observer effect, whereby the detection of matter disturbs the output.
Nevertheless, absurdist fun remains the true fuel which blasts this short book to the end. It proposes outlandish theories and then does a pretty decent job at providing convincing arguments for them. There are also many images with the Flying Spaghetti Monster shoved into classic art or historical photographs. Finally, it would be blasphemous of me not to mention pirates, who are lauded as divine beings and the original Pastafarians. This statement is supported by an accurate graph showing how the global decline in piracy directly correlates with an increase in climate change. Coincidence? Who is to say? The scientists? You can't trust those guys!
If there is one thing the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster excels at above any theology I've come across is its use of puns, "consPiracy" as a decent instance. Pastafarianism itself, of course, is a portmanteau of pasta and Rastafarianism. Continuing the trend, they celebrate holidays such as Pastover and Ramendan (plays on the Jewish Passover and Islamic Ramadan, respectively) where adherents are encouraged to eat copious amounts of pasta or fast on a diet of ramen noodles exclusively. Every Friday is also considered a holy day, in which prayers of thanks are concluded with R'amen rather than Amen. Meanwhile, Christmas celebrations are referred to simply as the all-inclusive "Holiday".
Another key feature of every religion is its afterlife theories, and Pastafarianism has its own unique brand. First, there is Heaven, which revolves around a beer volcano and a stripper factory. But then there is Hell, which is... exactly the same, except the beer is old and the strippers are riddled with STIs. Oh no!
If these concepts appear problematic to you, then you have successfully noted this "scripture's" greatest downfall: it has dated badly. Life was different in 2006, and punching down in comedy was perfectly acceptable. This book insults little people (freely referring to them as the M-word), and it is shamelessly fatphobic. Truly, these are the cheapest shots one can take for a laugh, and I cringed through each of them. Similarly, this Gospel pokes at various celebrities who were big names back in that day, yet hardly register in contemporary relevance. Such factors weigh heavily on the overall experience, primarily due to any lack of foresight. How can we even jokingly argue for this as a holy text when it's already lost its pertinence after two short decades? Meanwhile, the Bible and Quran may be archaic from their environments, yet they persist as timelessly profound works. Is this perhaps the strongest argument we have against the equal rights of the Flying Spaghetti Monster after all?
Those gripes aside, Pastafarianism still warrants much respect in the theological pot. For starters, nobody has been murdered in its name, which is always a go-to selling point for New Religious Movements. More importantly, I appreciate how my anticipation of some agenda punchline never came, the book really sticking to its philosophy that there is a legit noodly creator behind all of this. And finally, their best defence is that pasta is amazing. Perfect even. Plus, the beer worship goes a long way. Super carby church. I'm into it. It's a beautiful thing.
And that's the silly side of the atheistic analysis out of the way! I hope you enjoyed it! Now prepare yourself as I grow horns and lock them into the most famous atheist in the world: Richard Dawkins. Because while his work may be lauded as the pinnacle of anti-God assertions, I honestly consider him to be more full of shit than the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster itself.
The God Delusion
Within six pages of The God Delusion's first chapter, I was ready to throw it away. I knew Dawkins' basic atheistic argument from interviews with the man, and I had a semi-good idea of the factors with which I disagreed. But then, right there, so soon in those earliest paragraphs, he confessed in black and white that he was aware of his shortcomings.
Richard Dawkins does not not believe in God.
Instead, Dawkins doesn't believe in a supernatural personal being.
It's the same debate I've had with every atheist I've ever met (likely owing to the fact that every atheist I've ever met reads Dawkins as if it were scripture). This has nothing to do with a "God Delusion". This has everything to do with the "Yahweh Delusion" or perhaps the "Allah Delusion" if you're brave enough. It does not take into account the BILLIONS of people who believe in God, but not those specific gods either.
The smartest movement on the topic I've come across is called "ignosticism" (or "theological noncognitivism"). It proposes that, since God has never been universally defined, it is ridiculous to state it exists or doesn't exist, because we don't even know what it is. If forced to define it, God is generally supposed to encompass something infinite, omnipresent, and eternal, which in itself only increases the limitlessness of its description. Spend some time in the east and speak to the people there. Ask if they believe in God, and most will say they do. Then ask them whether they believe in the God that Dawkins describes, and most will say they don't. I, too, land in this category. My stance will become more apparent as we go along, but let me preempt it by saying that I do have an inkling about "God", and not a single point in Dawkins' tirade was relevant to my understanding.
Why I struggle with atheists is that they define the undefinable only so that they can argue against its existence. They do so in order to attack one demographic: the Abrahamic believers (Jewish, Christians, and Muslims). What they don't realise is that they are exactly the same as those people, just the other side of the coin. Here, two groups are shoving something into a box and then shouting at one another about that box, while the rest of us watch, shaking our heads. And yet, even if I were to join this ridiculous box squabble, I'd still have a difficult time siding with Dawkins.
The truth is that even within major religions, there are ample branches to choose from. Of course, for reasons of sensationalism and marketing, Dawkins has opted for the worst of the worst (which hardly constitutes the majority of anything) and then rubs it raw. This has led to written death threats from religious nutters because, in a massive pool of four billion Abrahamic-following humans worldwide, a small handful of nutters naturally exist. Those extreme letters are then printed in the book. They are exploited by the author as a representation of the faith. Dawkins himself actually admits that most letters he receives from religious people are "friendly", but we don't get to read those. They don't fit his agenda.
As you'd expect, acts of religious terrorism are also delightfully weaponised by Dawkins. He takes immense joy as he highlights brief moments in history when a small gang of terrorists caused horrific violence disguised beneath the name of their dogma. Of course, if you're smart enough, you'll know that this is obviously not a reflection on any religion. If you had to ask every person of faith around the world what they thought about these destructive acts, I'd be willing to bet that 100% of them (rounded up to the nearest whole number) would agree that such things were against their core belief system.
You can split society into any categories you like, and within each, there will always be a rotten egg waiting to crack. Religion is one of the most susceptible topics because it has been around since documented human existence and continues to reach an uncountable number of people today. It is an effortless exercise to cherry-pick horrific examples of where it all went wrong, but we must not forget that these are rare in the greater scheme. They do not reflect religion whatsoever. Instead, what we are looking at are the mentally ill, who should be defined by the contents of their skull, not their self-proclaimed associations.
But every atheist is a model citizen, right? Richard Dawkins actually says as much: "I do not believe there is an atheist in the world who would bulldoze Mecca". Oh really? Really? Not a single atheist on the planet would want to do that? What are you basing this statement on, Richard? Your wet finger in the wind? Have you asked this question to every atheist who ever lived? Wait, didn't the militant atheism group, the Albanian Communist Regime, destroy thousands of mosques and churches? Didn't Stalin bulldoze thousands of religious buildings? Didn't Pol Pot make religion illegal and execute thousands of monks (along with tens of millions of other people)? I have spoken to some atheists who have said things that would blow your mind, Dawkins. What's more, they adore you.
For a while, I was reading these pages and almost felt like forgiving Dawkins for his ignorance. Perhaps, as with most atheists, he isn't aware that every Christian or Muslim aren't exactly identical, and within these faiths, even the understanding of God differs vastly, especially in terms of mysticism. But then he'll let it slip that he knew that all along. For example, he provides a short list of Gnostic texts that weren't included in the Bible, acknowledging that there are Christian sects that offer alternative theories about God. Therefore, he's loudly confessing that his book is a performance in specifically targeting one tiny sector of a massive theology. Of course, he'll never dare hang around such topics long enough for it to sink in. Otherwise, his cult fanbase would crumble.
And yet... AND YET... even if I were to continue to dumb myself down to meet him on his level, I can still fray his thread and wrap it around my little finger. Upon closer inspection, while Dawkins appears to be focused on the Abrahamic timeline, there is a lot of additional selectiveness going on. For starters, he'll rip into the Bible but steer clear of the Quran, which is hilarious. You scared, boy? But then, even when he moves into the New Testament, he has little to say. In fact, he reluctantly mutters some really nice things about Jesus, agreeing that the man was a pioneer of ethics and peaceful activism. Dawkins tries his best to nitpick it, but ultimately, he always reverts to an attack on the Jewish Bible/Old Testament.
To criticise Christians using the Old Testament makes about as much sense as criticising Muslims using the Bible. They are developments from the former, and some might argue that the divergences are their greatest features. But because it's the loudest ammunition he has, Dawkins obsesses over this specific ancient scripture, proclaiming that anyone who utilises the Old Testament as a modern moral compass is wrong. Well, I agree! But is anybody you know doing so? Most Christians and even Jews in our modern era disregard (or are even ignorant of) the most violent teachings of these writings. The majority of people can grasp when something is a product of its era. The same can be said about the ample Muslims who soften certain passages of the Quran through a contemporary lens. Sometimes, instructions change and become less applicable to current society because we've evolved.
These days, the most astute theological scholars agree that ancient religious stories, from those of indigenous tribes to the Ancient Greeks to, yes, even the Bible, were allegorical. Their intentions were to convey knowledge in a more accessible format. Do you think Dawkins is aware of this allegory theory? He actually is! And he counters the hypothesis by saying it has "good intentions" and that is the end of his argument against allegory, done.
It's about here that we start to see that this book's problems don't only pertain to Dawkins' theories, but his person too. I picked up The God Delusion expecting an intelligent and professional man debating in opposition to God. What I found was a condescending and dismissive prick with zero class. Selective research is one thing, but when he refers to his critics as "fleas", I find it extremely distasteful. When discussing people who've seen or heard spiritual things, his suggestion is that they are hallucinating, and that's enough for him to move on. I agree that perhaps they are hallucinating. It's healthy to theorise. But it's not beneficial to use these theories to assert conclusions. Dawkins will be the quickest to say God is a theory. So, in what world can you use a theory to defeat a theory and then proceed satisfied? What makes your position superior? Especially considering that your mental assumptions are being used against their first-hand experiences?
I have such a long list of related complaints that I'm unsure how much I could write about before I bore you. Dawkins uses science to explain how moths fly into flames as a misfiring of evolution, and then suddenly, that becomes the go-to analogy for religion. He uses the image several times like it's a directly proven comparison despite there being no scientifically proposed connection whatsoever. I remember when I read David Icke's work, he'd use the same technique.
Dawkins claims that the only reason belief in God persists is that it is indoctrinated into us as kids. But that does not explain why so many of my Christian-raised friends became atheists or, conversely, people like me who found "God"-ish independently. Spirituality comes to people in all manners of life, and every single combination of indoctrination vs. rebellion exists in ample amounts. While I'm sure Dawkins' proposal covers certain experiences, his one-size-fits-all statement is careless at best, manipulative at worst, or just plain stupid all around.
When speaking about studies made on firing neurons, Dawkins presents the results where mental reactions to religious discovery are identical to those when falling in love. He then abruptly claims religion must be a mind virus that has evolved to exploit the love neurons. Excuse me? Based? On??? WHAT????? Has he ever thought that maybe discovering God is literally the exact same brain process as falling in love, and it's as simple as that? Why do you have to make up a mind virus just to suit your narrative?
Dawkins dedicates so much time to the lazy hypotheses that God is just an adult version of imaginary friends, without pausing to ask anyone who has had an imaginary friend and believes in God if there's a difference. Let me assure you that there is.
To illustrate narrow-mindedness, Dawkins uses the image of a burka, comparing the eye-slit to ignorance. I'm sure he chuckled to himself when he wrote it, thinking he was so clever as he made this indirect attack on Muslim women. I personally think it was unnecessarily offensive.
Another topic is dualism. Adherents (such as myself) believe that our reality is composed of (at least) two substances: the physical material and an underlying metaphysical electrical substance (aka spiritual). Dawkins observes that dualists consider the brain and the mind to be fundamentally different. We do. He then states that these same people consider illness to be simply bad spirits. Now I ask you, as a dualist, with tears in my eyes, in what fucking world is that necessarily a dualist belief???? I certainly don't believe that. Where is he getting this from? And then he'll continue by asserting that fictional concepts, such as those found in Parent Trap, where a mind is transferred into someone else's head, are wholly feasible according to a dualist. And, it's like... no, it isn't. You don't know what you are talking about, so why are you even talking? What's worse is that atheists around the globe are no doubt gobbling this up as if it were gospel.
Why are so many artistic pieces Christian-themed? According to Dawkins, because there's money in it, and that's all. Why were the greatest minds in Western history Christian? According to Dawkins, it was the status quo, and that's all. Now, am I saying he's wrong? No. I'm saying this is a hypothesis, with likely some truth to it, but definitely not a blanket fact. And yet, Dawkins states it as an absolute certainty. Oh, but I thought the entire atheism argument was dependent on verifiable proof? Surely, if your conclusion relies on an assumption, then that negates the very bedrock of your viewpoint?
Gradually, we're starting to see what The God Delusion is. This is not a scientific study. This is the Richard Dawkins Show, where all we get are his thoughts and his conclusions, wrapped up in a snide use of language. This book is essentially just one guy admitting that "I don't get this thing, so here are a bunch of reasons why I think it's dumb", none of which ever touch on the joy and fulfilment of spirituality that has nothing to do with organised religion. His rationale is frequently, "I doubt it" or "let me assure you", and I implore you to count how many times he says such phrases.
Even more worrying is that feels personal. He's so obsessed with something not existing that he's started foundations about it. He talks about the danger of strong conviction, completely unaware of the irony that is himself. And without a doubt, he has a mission to actively try to convert people to atheism like some moral duty. Remind you of anything?
And here is where it gets really interesting.
Richard Dawkins thinks he is an atheist, but he is not. I've already touched on this earlier, but now we're going to delve into the muck with trumpets blaring.
Throughout this book, Dawkins forces a distinction between "God" (aka Yahweh/Allah) and what he hilariously refers to as "Einstein's God". If you know your stuff, these layers of terminology are extremely funny because Einstein frequently referred to God as "Spinoza's God". That is in respect to Baruch Spinoza, a Dutch philosopher who famously became known as the founder of Pantheism in the 17th century. The hysterics pile on even further when you learn the genuine history behind this title.
Perhaps not by name but in practice, Pantheism predates every religious organisation of which you have ever heard. Numerous indigenous beliefs worldwide incorporate elements of Pantheism. Brahman, the highest entity in Vedic/Hindu religions, is Pantheistic (1500–500 BC), as is the Dao in Daoism (450–300 BC). What Pantheism asserts is that the Universe itself is divine. The collection of absolutely everything is a singular system of which we are merely a part. You can call this collective entity anything you like. Some prefer nature or the cosmos. But for many of us, myself included, Spinoza included, Einstein included, that's God.
As if it's an insult, Dawkins includes the following quote from Steven Weinberg: "Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the Universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." Yes, that is completely correct. God is in the lump of coal, God is the lump of coal, God is the hand holding the coal, the mind perceiving the coal, the Sun shining down onto the coal, the baby laughing over here, the cancer growing over there, the encompassing absolute everything of everything, evolving together as a unified organisation up to this very second, living through us and as us. If you wish to focus on the coal, that's not wrong. But it's a strange choice that says more about you than God.
So when Richard Dawkins asserts that "God doesn't exist" to a Pantheist, what we hear is "the Universe doesn't exist", which is why so many of us consider atheism to be ludicrous. Except that Dawkins is careful around the topic to the point that he is actually on our side. In his exact words, "Pantheism is sexed-up atheism." This is viciously insulting. Not only does he laud the belief, but he also has the audacity to claim it under his own umbrella. According to Dawkins, I, Jared Woods, am, in fact, an atheist. So how does that work? Can an atheist now agree with the existence of the highest God from Hinduism? The God of Mahāyāna Buddhism? The God of Neoplatonism? The God of various Native American religions? The God of numerous traditional African religions? The God of certain Maori philosophies? A vast spectrum of God's definition across ages and countries? Any God is fine as long as it's not Abrahamic?
But wait! Even that is untrue! Because the Pantheistic God is also found in deeper Abrahamics, especially in regard to mysticism. Jewish Kabbalah? Christian Gnosticism? Islamic Sufism? Each easily regarded as Pantheistic, and that's only to name the most popular. So again, do Dawkins' atheists believe God doesn't exist? No. Do they believe the God they've put into a box doesn't exist? Not even that, no. It's a box inside a box at this stage. The boundaries of a single religion are too vast to contain it. You've got to keep slicing it smaller, smaller, smaller.
As I've said, The God Delusion should be called The Yahweh Delusion, but even better title suggestions would be The God Delusion Delusion or perhaps Richard Dawkins' Delusions. He's an atheist, but not actually, just against Abrahamic, but not actually, just against a tiny fraction of the Abrahamics, but actually, that doesn't quite get there either. The title of Chapter 4 says more than the entire book: "Why there almost certainly is no God". Hey, now! Would you look at that word! Almost! Even the world's biggest atheist can't commit.
Of course, that doesn't stop Richard Dawkins' spiritual rampage, and besides self-proclaiming Pantheism as part of his team, he does the same with people. Einstein is particularly violated as Dawkins claims without reference that "Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense". He even labels the man an "atheistic scientist", which is sooooo far from the truth. Einstein vocally rejected atheism and spoke about God freely. He encouraged science and religion working together, said he understood God as the laws of the Universe, and when pushed, would settle on some sort of Pantheistic agnosticism (exactly like me!).
"If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds." - Albert Einstein.
When you start analysing the smartest people within the scientific field, you will find they are all agnostics. Anyone who seeks knowledge would never come to an inconclusive conclusion, because then the questions end. That is what separates Dawkins from the true pioneers of human thought, yet he still perverts them for his gain. For example, this book is filled with Carl Sagan quotes, as if Carl Sagan were an atheist. But Carl Sagan was an agnostic who also leaned into Pantheism.
"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the Universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed." - Carl Sagan
Looks like we've uncovered another of Dawkins' techniques: putting words into other people's mouths. Read the book for yourself and take note each time he makes a statement such as "I suspect so-and-so was an atheist", or "from this one can only deduce they were a type of atheist". Thomas Jefferson was so dedicated to the words of Jesus that he wrote the Jefferson Bible, a harmonisation of the four canonical Gospels, omitting the miraculous verses to grasp Christ's pure teachings. And what does Dawkins say about Jefferson? Well, because the man may (or may not) have claimed "no fear of death" that (according to Dawkins' logic) would indicate Jefferson "seems to have believed in no kind of afterlife", and therefore, "in the most unmistakable terms, he was not a Christian". How easy is it to play these leapfrog word games? Surely this is the very haphazard methodology a man of science would be fighting against?
It gets worse. If you think manipulating your hero's words to tune them to yourself is bad, wait until you hear how he treats those he dislikes. If there is a pope or a bishop in conversation, rest assured he'll dig out the most criminal detail about them to weaken their argument, no matter how irrelevant to the topic it may be. When it came to Christian theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson, Dawkins takes the liberty of INVENTING a speech for satirical purposes that erodes the man's beliefs (chapter 4: An Interlude at Cambridge). I want to emphasise this, so forgive me for repeating myself: DAWKINS LITERALLY FICTIONALISES QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO A WORLD-RENOWNED SCIENTIST PURELY TO MAKE FUN OF HIS FAITH. The fact that he admits to doing so does not soften the blow. Oh, unless this is a comedy book? Is that what this is? Wait, it's starting to make sense!
Yet even if Dawkins played fair and only presented authentic quotes from atheists, it still does very little to prove anything. If you write a book with an agenda, you can find references that agree with you. It's that simple. I guarantee you there are full-on religious publications that achieve exactly what The God Delusion does, just on the other end of the scale. Using reputable sources and selective statistics, every single point can be counterargued in any text. That is why I am no longer interested in publications with such blatant motives. The world needs more teachings that present both sides and allow readers to reach their own conclusions. The God Delusion is not that. It's a spoon-fed feasting.
Nevertheless, nothing is ever all bad, and as I do not have any intentions of my own, I'll happily give props where props are deserved and agree wherever my opinion aligns.
Dawkins is certainly passionate, and while it's a complex subject, he does a superb job of explaining himself to any reading level. I'd often flare up in resistance to something he'd say, only to have him answer my question later down the line, which was impressive. It's obvious that he's been bombarded from every angle by the worst of them and has built an extremely thorough system of rebuttals that are set for defence and offence at a moment's notice. That's understandable.
His chapter on the evolution of creationism was enjoyable, and I agree that creationism doesn't belong in schools unless as a side dish for intrigue's sake. Then again, I have never personally conversed with a religious person who argues against evolution, although perhaps he converses with different people, and I've just got lucky.
I also thought his chapter on morality was great, but I can't imagine many still believe that moral action and religious dedication are dependent on one another, given the abundance of contrary evidence. Seeking ethical guidance from an ancient book compiled during violent ages is a silly proposal, and I'm sure that in 2000 years' time, any surviving intelligent race will look back on our current era with a similar contempt. Nevertheless, if someone is inclined to murder but abstains due to the scary eye of God or post-death retribution, then that ultimately remains a positive result.
On that note, Dawkins frequently makes cases for religion without realising it. As an evolutionary biologist, his entire life's work is based on the Darwinian model, which clearly states that only the most purposeful of mechanisms can survive generations upon generations of adaptation. And yet, the concept of God has persisted across millennia. The Stone Age, the Age of Enlightenment, and our Digital Age all developed with faith merely changing shapes within them, and while the organisational side of religion may be fading, spirituality is alive and well. In simpler terms, to negate God is to negate natural selection itself. Of course, Dawkins runs miles spinning theories about this in his favour, but it stinks of desperation and is unsubstantiated. His vague conclusion on this topic was that "it must be a by-product of something". Yes, Richard. Some of us already know what that something is, but you never will.
Sometimes Dawkins comes close to breaking through, but his mental blockades prove too strong. For example, he rambles on about the possibility of intelligent life out there and about how we may make contact one day. In such an event, these extraterristrials would seem like gods to us. Well, allow me to bring the kicker: there is a theory across multiple religious interpretations that this is exactly what happened. Aliens came to Earth, meddled with our DNA, and that is what the scriptures are largely referring to. I am not saying this is the truth. What I am saying is that this is a workable notion that functions within Dawkins' limited understanding, in which the "God" we speak about may have existed in a scientifically plausible way. And suppose these aliens returned and told us as much? In that case, the religious people would shout, "We told you He existed!" and the atheist people would shout, "We told you he didn't exist!" and we'll be right back where we started: two opinions on one coin, the same object unaware of itself.
Which leads us to the biggest God Delusion victims of them all: the atheist community. Between every line of Dawkins' cocky half-truths, I can hear the non-believers cheering, completely unaware of the mental mechanics at work. The undefinable concept of God is squashed into a tiny scope so it can be easier beaten. They have drawn their conclusions, and using a book like this as their pistol, they'll shoot down anything that threatens their preconceptions. Hilariously, this is the exact same approach religious people follow. In all honesty, only the agnostics can read any religious or anti-religious literature properly, for we are the only ones who can see that in a world of unknowns, anyone who chooses a side is full of shit.
In fairness to this book, it was originally published in 2006, and in our fast-moving world, that was a long time ago. When it first came out, it probably contained some advanced thinking. In that way, it provides a snapshot of atheism sitting elsewhere, and one cannot underestimate the role The Gold Delusion has played in pushing the discussion forward. But we've moved far ahead now.
Once upon a time, atheism was considered the (non)belief system of the rational, whereby the basic requirement for Universal Law was scientific foundations; otherwise, it was disregarded. From this angle, atheism was lauded as an inner circle for the minority intelligent who did not fall prey to superstition. Yet, that is no longer the case. In a growing number of countries, "no religion" is the dominant tick on the census, such as in Estonia (58.6%), the Netherlands (56%), New Zealand (51.6%), and the Czech Republic (47.8%). These stats continue to rise, showing how rapidly the trend has changed. This means that atheism can no longer claim to corroborate with the higher IQ or educated elite. In the aforementioned countries, those statistics would include the average and even some of the below-average intelligence groups into the mix. Conversely, I have found that the most forward thinkers these days are drawing parallels between quantum science and ancient mysticism, which are suspiciously alike. At risk of repeating myself to death: only the agnostics are able to progress unhindered. In regards to someone like Dawkins, the accolades showered upon his atheistic persona have glued him into place, and ironically, this evolutionist cannot evolve past it. So many of us have now left him and his little book behind.
The thick line Dawkins (and others) draw between science and God while laughing off any attempt to reconcile them is counterproductive. For me, the jury is still out on God's existence, but if you are demanding evidence, the proposal for God is stronger and more measurably scientific than against. For example, when the medical industry does clinical trials for depression drugs, how do you think they assess the results? It is a self-reporting system in which the receiver completes a questionnaire about how they are feeling, and the study notes the changes. This is considered scientifically sound. If a large number of people concur on similar mental effects, the drug can be deemed successful. So, imagine a medicine so powerful that billions upon billions of people across history have reported positive change in their lives? That is belief in God. An atheist is someone who says, "because this drug does not work on me, it is obviously not authentic", or even worse, "I refuse to take this drug, so why can't I see any effects?"
Whether I believe in God or not is secondary to my stern belief in fighting for the underdog. There was a time when atheism needed extra hands, and I would've stood up for them too. But that is no longer the case, and we can now focus on preserving the good things of spirituality and, in turn, nurture that side of evolution which would be beneficial to society going forward.
If "God" (whatever that means) scares you or amuses you or evokes nothing whatsoever, that is your journey. Many of us are so fortunate to live in countries where such a stance is largely acceptable. However, that does not make you the king of the castle. Religious intolerance is a form of prejudice and discrimination, of which Dawkins is undeniably guilty. In Chapter 8, "What's wrong with religion? Why be so hostile?" he clearly states he is against religion as a whole because it can lead to extremism. This is the worst form of reverse generalisation. It forces the vast majority into a tiny minority. There are extremist versions of everything, including environmentalists and advocates for the freedom of speech. That does not mean their core messages should be wiped off the Earth. Yes, planes have flown into buildings and bombs have detonated on trains, but do you think that religion was the sole reason? Or was it perhaps the most convenient scapegoat? It is my opinion that territorial disputes and political disruptions will occasionally manifest in violence regardless, and while religion provides an easy excuse, these acts would continue with or without them.
To end on a positive note: the greatest compliment I can give The God Delusion is that it's essential reading. It doesn't matter whether you're pro-religion or anti-religion, the ammunition this book provides is priceless, and where an atheist could have perhaps once caught me off guard, I am now armed and ready for that debate. It may have been one of the thickest wads of excrement I've ever endured, but it was far from a waste of my time.
The God Delusion, of course, mentions The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in a glowing light. It is a holy text after all. So, as is customary, the rest of this blog piece will feature extracts from the Pastafarian sacred book, complete with my two cents on each. However, it's such a short read that you might as well complete the thing yourself. You can read the full Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster here.
Also, don't forget to check out my own spiritual philosophy, Janthopoyism! We may lean a little more toward God, but at least we avoid defining it.
Ok, and away we go!
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Analysis
DISCLAIMER
WHILE PASTAFARIANISM IS the only religion based on empirical evidence, it should also be noted that this is a faith-based book. Attentive readers will note numerous holes and contradictions throughout the text; they will even find blatant lies and exaggerations. These have been placed there to test the reader's faith.
Parody in the purest sense. Any contradiction is placed here to test our faith. The invincible forcefield.
Disclaimer About Midgets
OUR RELIGION DOES NOT WISH to discriminate or cause hurt feelings among any group—and this is especially true of the very short, who, if provoked, could easily appear out of nowhere and attack. As a solution, we offer the following:
To prevent angering the little people community, we suggest that this book be placed on the very highest shelf possible.
OUR RELIGION DOES NOT WISH to discriminate or cause hurt feelings among any group—and this is especially true of the very short, who, if provoked, could easily appear out of nowhere and attack. As a solution, we offer the following:
To prevent angering the little people community, we suggest that this book be placed on the very highest shelf possible.
Problematic on the first page. This type of humour doesn't land as well anymore.
A Letter from Bobby Henderson
What do we stand for?
• All that is good.
What are we against?
• All that isn't good.
• All that is good.
What are we against?
• All that isn't good.
While most religions would agree, I think it's wonderful to make this clear and simple statement from the beginning. I am on board.
THE BLUNDERS OF SCIENCE
The Need for Alternative Theories
Alternative theories must be taught in order to give our young students' minds a broad foundation.
No matter what happens, this will always be the entire basis of Pastafarianism.
What if it is He, pushing us down with His Noodly Appendages, that causes this force?
Alternative proposal for gravity. I could honestly not argue.
For further evidence of the true cause of gravity—that we are being pushed down by His Noodly Appendages—we need only look at our historical records. The average height of humans two thousand years ago was about five feet three inches for males, compared with an average height of around five feet ten inches for males today. Useless by itself, this information becomes quite important when viewed in terms of worldwide population. Humans, apparently obsessed with fucking, have increased their numbers exponentially over the years. We find, counterintuitively, that a small population correlates with shorter humans, and a larger population correlates with taller humans. 2 This only makes sense in light of the FSM theory of gravity. With more people on earth today, there are fewer Noodly Appendages to go around, so we each receive less touching—pushing down toward the earth—and thus, with less force downward, we're taller.
Again, flawless logic.
No one is saying that the FSM theory of gravity is necessarily true, but at the very least, it's based on sound science, sound enough to be included in the curriculum with the other nonproven theories. Until the currently taught theory of gravity, known as Newtonism, is proven as fact, alternatives should be taught as well.
We can already see that this is no ordinary attack. The ridiculousness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster will win because it exposes the ridiculousness of others. That's parody religion 101. What I didn't expect, however, was how they’d attack science so well, too!
An Alternative Viewpoint
Say you want to buy one of those new flatscreen TVs that are so popular these days. According to the opposing theories of ID and Evolution, you might acquire that TV in two very different ways:
1. You could assume, quite fairly, that Intelligent Designers from Sony, Toshiba, and Sharp are actively producing new and affordable forty-two-inch, high-definition flatscreen TVs, which are then boxed and shipped to the nearest Wal-Mart or Circuit City for you to purchase. Or . . .
2. You could wait several million years for a new flatscreen TV to evolve spontaneously from a "soup" composed of mud, DNA, and spare television parts. Once this happens, you might attempt to drag your new television out of a swamp and back to your house (or more likely, cave) before a stranger comes swinging out of a tree, kills you and your children, then inseminates your wife with his own seed.
1. You could assume, quite fairly, that Intelligent Designers from Sony, Toshiba, and Sharp are actively producing new and affordable forty-two-inch, high-definition flatscreen TVs, which are then boxed and shipped to the nearest Wal-Mart or Circuit City for you to purchase. Or . . .
2. You could wait several million years for a new flatscreen TV to evolve spontaneously from a "soup" composed of mud, DNA, and spare television parts. Once this happens, you might attempt to drag your new television out of a swamp and back to your house (or more likely, cave) before a stranger comes swinging out of a tree, kills you and your children, then inseminates your wife with his own seed.
It takes the FSM joke so far that it becomes an argument for intelligent design.
A number of scientists have been cited in defense of Evolution, but if we examine the situation more closely we begin to see a disturbing pattern.
Names like Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Meyer—and many other scientists who 95 percent of the country have never heard of—are offered up as men who've supported Evolution. Yet you've never seen one of these so-called scientists publicly defending their theory. Why?
Answer: Because they're all dead.
Names like Darwin, Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Ernst Meyer—and many other scientists who 95 percent of the country have never heard of—are offered up as men who've supported Evolution. Yet you've never seen one of these so-called scientists publicly defending their theory. Why?
Answer: Because they're all dead.
HAHAHAHAHA.
Toward a New SuperScience
Even with satellite imagery and GPS navigation, scientists bound by the chains of empiricism have been unable to discover even a paltry 3 percent of the amount of new land that their supernatural-science counterparts found in an equal period of time. Scientists and explorers in the years 1400-1600 had few maps, only a compass, cross-staff, or astrolabe for navigation, and no motorized transportation. Yet even with these setbacks, they still managed to discover more than 14 million square kilometers of new, developable land. Clearly their openness to supernatural forces had something to do with their success, and we can only guess that they were guided to these newfound lands by some creature—most likely the Flying Spaghetti Monster, as historical art suggests.
The amount of land discovered during a less scientific age was more expansive, which, of course, favours the case of previous eras of worship.
It's only logical to assume that returning to balanced methods of science—natural theories and supernatural theories both—would allow us to find more land, something we greatly need for our growing population. More land means more resources, and more resources means fewer starving children. I can safely say, then, that anyone against the inclusion of supernatural theories into science wants children to starve. Such people obviously have no place in policymaking, and so I suggest that they get no say on the issue.
A lot of the verses I've included are just because they made me laugh, like this one.
The other possibility is that there are witches out there, hiding somewhere, plotting their revenge, liberally applying fireproofing compounds to themselves. And someday they may reappear and start causing trouble. And then what will our high and mighty scientists do? Throw calculators at them? Witches eat calculators.
Good to know.
What's the Matter with evolution?
Is Evolution going to somehow make my life more satisfying? Can Evolution put food on my table?
[...]
What is Evolution but the gradual change of species over a lengthy period of time as a result of various internal and external selective pressures? My grandfather, who is as old as dirt, has been through that. According to early lithographs, he was quite a looker in his day, but now, a century later, after years of hard drinking and working in the mines, he has no hair and looks like shit. Could Evolution just mean growing old?
[...]
What is Evolution but the gradual change of species over a lengthy period of time as a result of various internal and external selective pressures? My grandfather, who is as old as dirt, has been through that. According to early lithographs, he was quite a looker in his day, but now, a century later, after years of hard drinking and working in the mines, he has no hair and looks like shit. Could Evolution just mean growing old?
I've highlighted two bits from this section, but honestly, it's all really funny and worth a read.
It is this process, scientists will tell you, that produced the platypus, the penguin, and the poodle—leading us to conclude that scientists are definitely full of shit. If someone can explain to me the adaptive traits of the "duckbill," then they can certainly tell me why the platypus is the only mammal on the planet that has one? Are platypii (pusses... who knows?) concerned with ingratiating themselves into local duck populations? Do they think that they're funny? Why the fuck do they have a bill?
Asking the real questions.
If we look at bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics, insects that grow resistant to DDT, or even HIV that grows resistant to antiviral drugs, we see a fascinating correlation between "Natural Selection" and "resistance." But what are we really seeing here? I submit that they're not changing their genetic makeup, they're changing their minds. In short, they're getting smarter. If I go to your house and you feed me a shit sandwich two days in a row, I'm having lunch at McDonald's on the third day. It's that simple. Don't let the scientists, with their big phallic bacterial names, tell you anything different. They're not as smart as they pretend to be, no matter how much they try to demean so-called lower life forms.
Flawless logic.
And Evolution wasn't even properly invented until the late 1800s. Is that enough time to get a Labrador retriever from a dire wolf? I think not.
So true.
If we look at domestic cabbage, broccoli, kale, cauliflower, and brussels sprouts, are we to claim, even if they did originate from a common ancient wild cabbage, that selection, be it natural, artificial, whatever, could not have done better over the last few thousand years? The answer is written in the squinched-up face of every child with a brussels sprout in his or her mouth. Yet another strike against Evolution.
I am convinced.
They will tell you that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor some five million years ago, and that we "diverged" from that common ancestor and eventually invented the space shuttle while chimpanzees were only able to invent "the stick." To support this thesis, scientists tell us that we share 95 percent of our DNA with chimpanzees, and yet we share 99.9 percent of our DNA with Pirates. 6 1 ask you, who is the more likely common ancestor? And are the Pirates not the Chosen People of the FSM? Why do we spend so much time talking about something that didn't happen, while the FSM is dangling His Noodly Appendage right in front of our faces?
Naturally leading into pirates now.
Fallacy: This is a remnant of an internal pouch used to ferment the hard-to-digest plant diets of our ancestors.
Fact: The appendix was a clever internal pouch utilized for hiding a Pirate's gold. It is also the inspiration for the saying "cough it up," which Pirates would demand of defeated Pirates once they'd boarded their ships.
Fact: The appendix was a clever internal pouch utilized for hiding a Pirate's gold. It is also the inspiration for the saying "cough it up," which Pirates would demand of defeated Pirates once they'd boarded their ships.
This subsection (From Pirates to People) lists fallacies that are hit-or-miss. But this one was funny.
We are not saying that Evolution can't exist, only that it is guided by His Noodly Appendage. And our Spaghedeity is extremely modest. For some reason, He went through a great deal of trouble to make us believe that Evolution is true—masking the prominent role of Pirates in our origins, making monkeys seem more important than they really are, generally keeping behind the scenes and out of the spotlight.
In spite of His low profile, though, let no one doubt that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not only a groundbreaking religion, but is also supported by hard science, making it probably the most unquestionably true theory ever put forth in the history of mankind. To make my point, I will turn to the modern-day problem of global warming.
In spite of His low profile, though, let no one doubt that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not only a groundbreaking religion, but is also supported by hard science, making it probably the most unquestionably true theory ever put forth in the history of mankind. To make my point, I will turn to the modern-day problem of global warming.
It then proceeds to poke holes in everything. It includes a diagram showing how the decrease in the pirate population correlates with the increase in climate change. It uses the scientific method to make fun of the scientific method, which is what we like around here.
We have a different approach: FSM believers reject dogma. Which is not to say that we don't believe we're right. Obviously, we do. We simply reserve the right to change our beliefs based on new evidence or greater understanding of old evidence. Our rejection of dogma is so strong that we leave open the possibility that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster at all. So, in a sense, you could say that we're extremely openminded—we could change our minds someday. All we ask is proof of His nonexistence.
Amazing. If every religion were like this, we would free ourselves of so many needless issues.
An Alternate Vision
we hereby state our belief that the universe is a result of "UNINTELLIGENT DESIGN" (UD).
Funny enough, this is Gnosticism.
FSM vs. ID, on Unlikely Alliance
But ask yourself this question: While "peer review" sounds like a good idea, is turning to one's peers for their opinions not the wrong way to go? Is it not the same as a woman asking her boyfriend, "Do I look fat in this blouse/dress/parka?" Regardless of the item of clothing being worn, the answer is a resounding "no, you look great" in 99.99 percent of all test cases. 2 As a consequence, we argue that the highly secretive "peer review" system is unfairly hardwired to reinforce the limited viewpoints of scientists and their close friends.
lolssss
Both sides have their points to make, but the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster proposes a simple answer that is more likely, and immensely more plausible, which is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is altering our scientific data in an effort to mislead us. It's not the scientists' fault, for how could they know? The FSM is invisible and passes through normal matter with ease.
While our theory may sound a lot like Intelligent Design, there are important differences between ID and FSMism, the most important being that they are wrong and we are right.
While our theory may sound a lot like Intelligent Design, there are important differences between ID and FSMism, the most important being that they are wrong and we are right.
Infallible! Literally the same as every religion, but at least this one sees the ridiculous.
Communion test
Both subjects had their vitals recorded before and after communion. Upon completion of the test, the Christian was found to be listless, with decreased heart rate, body temperature, and brain function. The Pastafarian recorded increased heart rate, body temperature, and brain function, commenting that he felt "full," which we interpreted to mean whole.
Hilarious "experiment" where they claim to have fed someone a load of communion wafers vs a load of pasta. As expected, the one who ate the pasta felt better afterwards.
Unified Spaghetti Theory
This chapter compares the creation of the world to pasta. It is worth reading in its entirety. DNA does look like fusilli pasta, it's true.
More evidence
We thought it would prove enlightening to look more closely at these institutes of higher learning and try to find some evidence of His Noodly Appendage at work.
There does appear to be a correlation between universities of higher learning and Ramen, as well as beer, the official drink of Pirates.
EXPLAINING PASTAFARIANISM
A Condensed History of the World
The universe appears to be expanding, much like cooked pasta.
Try deny it.
Earth was created in approximately 0.062831853 seconds and was similarly disguised to appear much older. We can be certain that the FSM spent even more time preparing the earth, because, being allknowing, He was well aware that soon enough there would be nosy people poking around everywhere. Known as "scientists," these nosy people have a sick need—probably sexually motivated—to figure out how things work, and so it was even more important that our apparent reality be well designed to hide the truth.
It's the "probably sexually motivated" that got me.
Regardless of the lies told about them, the first Pastafarians were peace-loving explorers and spreaders of goodwill, not bloodthirsty criminal Pirates. In fact, they were well known to distribute candy to passing children, thus establishing what is now known as Halloween.
Of course it was not all good times. Not everyone was a believer, and some rejected His Word and felt the need to go out on the ocean in their own (probably lame) ships and pick fights with the Pastafarians. Most notable was Noah, of biblical fame, who slapped together a monstrous barge made of wood and whatever else was around—probably dirt, who knows? Noah, well known for his love 3 of animals, always had plenty around. So when he found himself with a lack of building materials he decided to use hundreds of defenseless animals as ballast—mainly the slowest, dumbest, and most dense that he could come across.
It's not known exactly what occurred during this time of Noah and the Pirates, but enough historical texts have survived through the years to get a rough picture of the events that transpired. Noah, alone except for his animals/ballast, propelled by jealousy and maybe a group of talking seals, set forth in search of Pastafarians. Unfortunately for Noah, he found one of the most bad-ass Pirate ships around, and started talking way too much smack. The Pastafarians, being above all peaceful, and maybe drunk, ignored his verbal abuse. It was only when Noah, ever the dick, physically attacked the Pastafarian ship by hurling from his bow the pointiest of animals 4 that the Pastafarians took notice. We are told that the largest, scariest of the Pastafarians swam, or maybe just jumped, from ship to ship—they were that powerful—and confronted Noah.
Immediately seeing the error of his ways, Noah offered some turtles or something as a way of apologizing. The Pastafarians, probably having plenty of their own turtles, 5 said no deal, and proceeded to intimidate the bejesus out of Noah. We don't know exactly what was said, but it's clear that Noah wet himself to such an extent that even Christians associate him with "the Great Flood." 6 Needless to say, he never mistreated animals again—not even chickens, who are pretty much asking for it
Of course it was not all good times. Not everyone was a believer, and some rejected His Word and felt the need to go out on the ocean in their own (probably lame) ships and pick fights with the Pastafarians. Most notable was Noah, of biblical fame, who slapped together a monstrous barge made of wood and whatever else was around—probably dirt, who knows? Noah, well known for his love 3 of animals, always had plenty around. So when he found himself with a lack of building materials he decided to use hundreds of defenseless animals as ballast—mainly the slowest, dumbest, and most dense that he could come across.
It's not known exactly what occurred during this time of Noah and the Pirates, but enough historical texts have survived through the years to get a rough picture of the events that transpired. Noah, alone except for his animals/ballast, propelled by jealousy and maybe a group of talking seals, set forth in search of Pastafarians. Unfortunately for Noah, he found one of the most bad-ass Pirate ships around, and started talking way too much smack. The Pastafarians, being above all peaceful, and maybe drunk, ignored his verbal abuse. It was only when Noah, ever the dick, physically attacked the Pastafarian ship by hurling from his bow the pointiest of animals 4 that the Pastafarians took notice. We are told that the largest, scariest of the Pastafarians swam, or maybe just jumped, from ship to ship—they were that powerful—and confronted Noah.
Immediately seeing the error of his ways, Noah offered some turtles or something as a way of apologizing. The Pastafarians, probably having plenty of their own turtles, 5 said no deal, and proceeded to intimidate the bejesus out of Noah. We don't know exactly what was said, but it's clear that Noah wet himself to such an extent that even Christians associate him with "the Great Flood." 6 Needless to say, he never mistreated animals again—not even chickens, who are pretty much asking for it
Here is some pirate meets Bible history. The story of Noah appears again later in The Holy Noodle section.
Convinced of the inherent evil of Pirates, Hare Krishnas, who are descended from Ninjas, banded together at various seaports and declared a holy war against the Pirates.
The Hare Krishnas are bad guys in this mythology. That makes me sad tbh. I like them.
Most Celtic artwork resembles the FSM, which leads us to believe that many Pirates simply became druids. Also, there is a striking similarity between midgets and leprechauns.
Use this as you will.
Key Moments in FSM History
This is a fun chapter largely dependent on images that place the Flying Spaghetti Monster in cave art, hieroglyphs, Greek architecture, Renaissance art, the Declaration of Independence, the moon landing, etc. It makes some interesting points, for example, the Great Wall of China does resemble a noodly appendage!
Bobby Answers the Big Questions
An FAQ section. I have selected a handful of the most consequential here:
Q: If the FSM is benevolent, why do bad things happen to good people?
A: They may have angered Him, or it could be that He is too busy, or indifferent for whatever reason, to get involved. He works in mysterious ways that we are not always able to understand.
Q: Does He hear my prayers?
A: Yes, but that is not to say they will necessarily be answered. To increase your odds, it's recommended that you wear Pirate regalia or at least an eye patch.
Q: Are the other religions wrong?
A: No, they're just misguided. We accept converts from other religions with open arms.
Q: Are there male strippers in FSM Heaven for women?
A: Probably, but they are invisible to the non-homo guys.
A: They may have angered Him, or it could be that He is too busy, or indifferent for whatever reason, to get involved. He works in mysterious ways that we are not always able to understand.
Q: Does He hear my prayers?
A: Yes, but that is not to say they will necessarily be answered. To increase your odds, it's recommended that you wear Pirate regalia or at least an eye patch.
Q: Are the other religions wrong?
A: No, they're just misguided. We accept converts from other religions with open arms.
Q: Are there male strippers in FSM Heaven for women?
A: Probably, but they are invisible to the non-homo guys.
WWAPD?
FIND THEE A WENCHI.
Or if you're a wench, find thee a Pirate!
Wenches and Pirates go together like spaghetti and spaghetti sauce*.
* So do same-sex Pirates, who are perfectly acceptable in Pirate culture.
Or if you're a wench, find thee a Pirate!
Wenches and Pirates go together like spaghetti and spaghetti sauce*.
* So do same-sex Pirates, who are perfectly acceptable in Pirate culture.
Good to know that Pastafarianism supports the LGBTQ+ community.
The Holy Noodle
THEN THE FSM SAID, "Let there be light," and there was light.
As anticipated, this follows on with the creation story ala FSM. There is a more significant point here. That it's ripping off Genesis (much like so many do) says more about the Bible's power than anything else.
And let there be a volcano to spew forth beer, which seems like a benevolent idea." And the volcano spewed forth beer and He tasted it and declared it to be quite good.
Second Day of Creation: Enter the beer volcano, which I am into.
When the FSM awoke, his thoughts were muddled and He didn't know where He was. Slightly hungover, and somewhere out in the Indian Ocean, the FSM found himself a little confused about what He'd created the day before; and so, self-conscious about the previous night's misbehavior, He started barking Godlike orders in an attempt to reestablish His powerfulness, and then the FSM decided to organize.
Third Day of Creation.
Later that evening He rolled out of bed and landed hard on the firmament, and this, fair reader, was the true Big Bang. He had a funny feeling and realized in His drunken stupor that He had not only built a factory in Heaven that turned out scantily clad women in transparent high heels, but He'd also created a midget on earth, whom He called Man. And He said, "Wow. Even I might have overreached my Noodly Appendage on this one," and not even sure what day it was anymore, He decided to take an extended break from the whole creation gig, and He gave a quick blessing and declared, "From here on out, every Friday is a holiday."
Fifth Day of Creation. A "midget" was the first man, of course.
Before long, Man broke his damned tooth on that olive pit, and the FSM said, "What did I give you ears for if not to listen to me?" And Man said, "I have ears?" And he eventually located them on the sides of his head, but not before discovering a small Noodly Appendage between his legs, which he noticed was infinitely smaller than even the shortest of the FSM's appendages, and he realized that his woman appeared to be thinking the same thing, so the midget-man said, "Hand me one of those fig leaves, will you?"
Olive instead of apple, of which Man did not heed the warning about the hard seed. I do love the "Noodly Appendage between his legs" visual.
"Where are you?" Man said, "I heard you floating around over there, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid
myself."
And the FSM said, "That's fine, but can you tell me where you hid those delicious breadsticks? I haven't eaten since the Creation."
"We ate them all," the midget-man lied. "There aren't any more breadsticks left."
And the FSM said, "That's fine, but can you tell me where you hid those delicious breadsticks? I haven't eaten since the Creation."
"We ate them all," the midget-man lied. "There aren't any more breadsticks left."
Funny. It is massively a food religion, which is an untapped market.
1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious, Holier-ThanThou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.
2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.
4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.
6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/ Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):
A. Ending Poverty
B. Curing Diseases
C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable I Might Be A Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.
7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.
RAmen.
2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.
4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.
6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/ Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):
A. Ending Poverty
B. Curing Diseases
C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable I Might Be A Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.
7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If The Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.
RAmen.
The eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts" AKA the eight Condiments.
A History of Heretics
Useless pages offering brief fake biographies of figures like Da Vinci, Darwin, and Dolly the cloned sheep. Was almost funny at parts. Almost.
PROPAGANDA
The Pastafarion Guide to Propaganda
NOW THAT YOU KNOW some of the science and history behind Pastafarianism, you may feel that you're ready to go out and spread His Word. With this in mind, it is important to remember that one of the central ideas of FSMism is the idea of inclusion. Anyone can be a member, no matter their age, race, background, or even their religious affiliation. As we've stated earlier, we do not base our beliefs on dogma—if we did, we'd have to think that we're absolutely right about everything. Only assholes think that way. And Pastafarians are not assholes.
So remember, Pastafarians are not assholes. We simply deliver His Word and let the people decide.
With inclusion in mind, we feel it is necessary to approach members of other religions in an effort to show them our beliefs. It's possible that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all the other religions, except probably for Scientologists, may be willing to convert after hearing about FSMism. We welcome with open arms any members of other religions. And remember our guarantee:
Try us for thirty days and if you don't like us, your God will most likely take you hack.
This is an important detail in spreading His Word. If it works for infomercials, it will definitely work for religion. The God-back guarantee should always be offered up front. It shows that we're confident about our beliefs and helps to build trust. Trust is very important when you're trying to change somebody's beliefs. And since we're one of the few religions that's never threatened nonbelievers with violence, it's all we've got.
So remember, Pastafarians are not assholes. We simply deliver His Word and let the people decide.
With inclusion in mind, we feel it is necessary to approach members of other religions in an effort to show them our beliefs. It's possible that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and all the other religions, except probably for Scientologists, may be willing to convert after hearing about FSMism. We welcome with open arms any members of other religions. And remember our guarantee:
Try us for thirty days and if you don't like us, your God will most likely take you hack.
This is an important detail in spreading His Word. If it works for infomercials, it will definitely work for religion. The God-back guarantee should always be offered up front. It shows that we're confident about our beliefs and helps to build trust. Trust is very important when you're trying to change somebody's beliefs. And since we're one of the few religions that's never threatened nonbelievers with violence, it's all we've got.
It felt necessary to steal this entire page. It's good stuff. Every religion could learn from it.
CHILDREN are generally not the brightest of people, and can be easily converted to FSMism. Mentioning Pirates will ensure it.
CELEBRITIES are an interesting matter. Consider them to be a special project. When an actor or musician adopts a religion it is a sure sign that it is going to be popular. As such, we suggest identifying one or two hot targets. Lindsay Lohan seems like she'd be open to Pastafarianism. Also, Madonna is probably up for a conversion soon. We suggest approaching those celebrities who appear to be starving. You might want to mention that a high-carbohydrate diet is just what they need to restore their physical and spiritual well-being.
CELEBRITIES are an interesting matter. Consider them to be a special project. When an actor or musician adopts a religion it is a sure sign that it is going to be popular. As such, we suggest identifying one or two hot targets. Lindsay Lohan seems like she'd be open to Pastafarianism. Also, Madonna is probably up for a conversion soon. We suggest approaching those celebrities who appear to be starving. You might want to mention that a high-carbohydrate diet is just what they need to restore their physical and spiritual well-being.
Some guidance on demographic conversions.
And lastly, you might ask a moderate Christian a question that they've undoubtedly heard before. What would Jesus do?
We suggest that Jesus would have taken a look at the direction things are going and converted to FSMism. Our beliefs and rejection of dogma are much more consistent with his ideology than much of modern-day dogmatic Christianity. And we find it hard to believe that Jesus would approve of a great deal of the politics enacted ostensibly on his behalf. And he probably wouldn't take kindly to the wars that have been fought in his name either.
WWJD?
HWCTFSM.
We suggest that Jesus would have taken a look at the direction things are going and converted to FSMism. Our beliefs and rejection of dogma are much more consistent with his ideology than much of modern-day dogmatic Christianity. And we find it hard to believe that Jesus would approve of a great deal of the politics enacted ostensibly on his behalf. And he probably wouldn't take kindly to the wars that have been fought in his name either.
WWJD?
HWCTFSM.
Jesus Would Convert to FSM.
This is more true now than ever.
ISLAM is the world's second largest religion after Christianity. Granted, we don't see a lot of Muslims in this country, but we do see a lot of them on television. It seems that many of them live in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. This is interesting to note, because some of our greatest missionary work is taking place in these places, where there are a surprising number of Pastafarians in the military. While people believe that the president sent troops into Iraq to find WMDs, it's pretty much been common knowledge that most of the weapons they were supposedly looking for were over in Iran and North Korea. So why did he send so many troops to the wrong country? As you know, until recently, Iraq was a country run by a secular government, under the rule of Saddam Hussein. 1 0 High government officials in the United States predicted correctly that it would be easier to convert a secular country to Pastafarianism than it would be to convert, say, Iran. This program of bringing His Word to the people has been termed by the Pentagon as Operation Wiggly Multiappendaged Deity, or Operation WMD for short. As President Bush probably once said, "We are making progress in Iraq. But it's going to take time." Tune in to see how it goes.
One of those annoying parts that betray the era and geographical region of the writings, which erode at their timelessness and global appeal.
For Orthodox Jews, point out the tzitzit that they wear. Moses himself was told to wear one, and the strings do resemble His Noodly Appendages, so we can only assume that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made the suggestion in the first place.
Lol, true again.
This section has many more examples, one of my favourite conversion techniques being "offer them some Ramen". It makes total sense because Jains are starving and Rastas have munchies, etc.
Pamphlets
WHY YOU SHOULD CONVERT TO FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTERISM
• Flimsy moral standards.
• Every Friday is a religious holiday.
• Our Heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.
• Flimsy moral standards.
• Every Friday is a religious holiday.
• Our Heaven is WAY better. We've got a Stripper Factory AND a Beer Volcano.
Taken from their propaganda pamphlet.
Smart People Who Agree with Us
"One of the most exciting developments in physics recently is so-called string theory, in which all subatomic particles are described as microscopic vibrating strings. Obviously this is correct, though misnamed. As Noodle Theory reveals, He has created the matter in the universe in His own quivering image!"
"Clearly the FSM has aspects of both male and female, with both 'Noodly Appendages' and two round meatballs, which clearly represent the breasts of the Great Mother Goddess."
"As a neuroscientist and clinical psychologist, I have often been struck by how the brain resembles pasta."
"One of the most exciting developments in physics recently is so-called string theory, in which all subatomic particles are described as microscopic vibrating strings. Obviously this is correct, though misnamed. As Noodle Theory reveals, He has created the matter in the universe in His own quivering image!"
"Clearly the FSM has aspects of both male and female, with both 'Noodly Appendages' and two round meatballs, which clearly represent the breasts of the Great Mother Goddess."
"As a neuroscientist and clinical psychologist, I have often been struck by how the brain resembles pasta."
More standout quotes taken from the propaganda pamphlet.
Swag
You have to wonder if sections like this were to fulfil some page minimum, but anyway, here you have instructions for creating your very own Pirate-Fish Stencil and Flying Spaghetti Monster Simulacrum. The former is made using rubber bands and actually looks pretty cool.
Fund-raising
If members don't want to contribute to the cause, they don't have to. Freeloaders will be welcome aboard the Ship—however they most certainly will not be allowed to touch the cannons. There has to be some motivation to contribute, after all.
Donating is not necessary. A lot of Pastafarianism funds are said to be used towards the building of a pirate ship. According to several interviews, Henderson was genuinely planning to do this, but I can't seem to find out whether he did.
A Guide to the Holidays
I've already covered most of these in the main text, but this is the section if you wish to learn more about their brilliantly named holidays such as PASTOVER (encouraged to eat copious amounts of pasta) and RAMENDAN ("fasting" by eating only Ramen noodles). I haven't mentioned INTERNATIONAL TALK LIKE A PIRATE DAY, which takes place on September 19. It wasn't invented by the Spaghetti Church but they've naturally adopted it into their canon.
Enlightenment Institute
A long but funny section with well-written essays arguing for FSM, including works (reportedly) authored by a mathematician, theologian, historian, and even "corporate proof". Worth a read.
Imagine a box of uncooked spaghetti. It's essentially a series of straight lines. A box of two hundred pieces of spaghetti has very low Kolgoromov complexity. You could easily compress the data contained in those two hundred pieces. Now imagine a plate of cooked spaghetti, complete with sauce and, if you like, meatballs. Imagine the process of untangling this mass. It would take hours to take each individual piece of spaghetti, clean off the sauce, and put it in its own separate place and pick out the meatballs. This plate of spaghetti, all tangled up and covered with delicious sauce has very high complexity. Spaghetti has the astounding property of being able to go from very low to very high complexity.
Strong observations from the essay "Life, Kolgoromov Complexity, and Delicious Spaghetti" by Nick Moran
A Final Note from Bobby Henderson and His Staff
It has been said that the best sauce requires an occasional stir or two—wiser words have seldom been spoken—and so we have done our best to stir the waters of belief in the hopes of converting just a few more Pirates to His Noodly Goodness.
This is how the book ends.
Ok, so that's done now! See you again in 2026! It will be an actual theological doctrine next time, I promise! :D
