12 3

If our belief as agnostics is specifically defined as I do not know what form God may be? Does this mean there is equal credibility deserved to be credited to the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

DavidLaDeau 8 Jan 1

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Ironically, without intention, I have found myself defending the FSM using tactics I learned as a fundamentalist. This has been entertaining and I hope instructive. We can justify anything we want, we can deceive yourself about anything despite the facts. I think this has turned into a great thought experiment in theist thinking. Thank you all for your participation!


May you touched by his noodly appendage! R'amen! (And beware of those maniacal heretical SPAMITES!)



All myths, superstitions are equal; yes... they are ALL real fantasies.


First I am an athiest/agnostic, meaning that it depends on whether you ask me if there is a God or do you believe in a God?
Personally I would that you couldn't argue the existence of either God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the invisable pink unicorn, so I would say that it's up to you on what you believe what form God takes; if it were up to me then I would say takes the forms of atoms.


As an agnostic, when I say "I don't know" that doesn't give credibility to anything. It's a statement that there is no evidence one way or another to sway opinion or belief.

When there is evidence, however, we can (and should) stop being agnostic on a subject.

Such is the case with FSM. There is no such thing as "equal credibility" to the FSM given that it's existence is put forth as satire against intelligent design and not meant, by Bobby Henderson or others, to be seriously believed in. It is satire the way that the Church of the Subgenius is satire or that the Illuminati is satire.

The FSM, may you be touched by his noodlely appendage, is satire. We can not "know" it is not possible for him to exist.


Sure we know it doesn't exist: Bobby Henderson invented it in 2005.

But if you want to be "logical" about it, spaghetti and meatballs are human made and thus can't in turn make humans which again highlights the satirical nature

While we know this to be true, it is possible that the magical FSM gave a revelation to the fellow in 2005. I have been a theist, studied theist, and debated theist long enough to "know" how the game is played. It is in fact possible that the FSM exist. It certainly exist in pop culture. I will concede that I am certain that it does not exist. This being said it is just as plausible as any other God. We can not know what we by definition can not know. This is my point. I concede it is possible for the FSM to exist. I am an FSM agnostic. I do not believe the FSM exist I am an FSM atheist. May you be touched by his noodly appendage.

The FSM could have wanted his exposure to seem to be satire even though he actually exist. This may be due to his Devine will which we can not understand. That's how the religious game is played. Whenever facts are given simply pull stuff out of your.....


" This being said it is just as plausible as any other God" Not at all for two reasons:

  • As I said above, spaghetti and meatballs are man made and something man made cannot make man in turn. This highlights the original satirical and nonsensical purpose of FSM not as a magic bullet to discredit gods but as a way to make the point that if we accept one set of beliefs in teaching science, namely intelligent design, we must accept all others no matter how absurd.

  • In the original gospels, Bobby claimed that there were 10 million followers of FSM as of 2005. Thus the FSM did not give a revelation to this fellow as many, by his claim, were already revealed. BUT, on his site he claims he doesn't know how many pastafarians there are. Such contradictions are evidence of the made up nature of the claim, as well as the fact that Bobby Hendersen's problem is with religion posing as science, nothing more.

"This may be due to his Devine will which we can not understand. That's how the religious game is played. Whenever facts are given simply pull stuff out of your"

I completely agree that SOME religious play the "watch me pull this bullshit out of my ass" game. But not all. And thus the FSM is a good critique for not accepting that if someone says something it must be true because "god"... but it is not as complete an indictment of all religion as some people pretend that it is.

@TheMiddleWay you are thinking!


Ha! Can't stop curse!


What's the point in making up definitions?

Simple question/response: To facilitate the shared symbolism we call language.

@BobFenner And you think making up definitions instead of using established definitions help? Okay then, I say agnostic means not atheist or theist. Pfft.

Mmmm; should stick with either proscriptive (the way it's s'posed to be) or descriptive def.s... The Oxford et al. I do have a classics minor from my first degree (didn't come pre-perforated for use), so, do recall the bit re derivation... as in "not knowing" for a-gnostic. Will have to look up the lexicon def...: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God." I interpret this last as indicating that an agnostic person IS or IS NOT atheistic. So; we're in agreement.

Dictionaries do not necessarily actually adequately define a word according to usage. They are often flatly wrong in the areas of science and religion. People whom write dictionaries are not experts in any particular field only in language. For example they could simply not "know" exactly what the meaning of every term in every sport means. So they do their best and approximate. There is a huge difference in, I do not believe in God or I do not believe there is a God. Yet both meanings may be alternated in the definition of atheist. These may seem to be unimportant nuances to those whom are not atheist, but represent major theological differences. So it is very important for us to define very clearly exactly what we mean when we use certain words.


It could be argued (though I'm not going to do it) there are manifestations of possibly millions of Flying Spaghetti Monsters variations in each mind of these predominantly nontheists. Even as "unbelievers" in the monster itself, any actions made as a result of the acknowledgement of it could be said to be such a manifestation as well.

For the record these are the only "knowns" I have of the myriad abrahamic death cults. Their god(sssss...) really suck.


In that context, yes.


If the FSM is indeed running the show, things make so much more sense

All hail the sacred colander!


Need to see physical proof of Flying Spaghetti Monster. lol.

Well if you want to worship something that there is physical proof of and from which all life eminates and is kept alive by, worship the sun but don't forget your cream, the touch of your god will burn if you stay to long in his presence. And don't try to gaze upon your god or you may go blind, LOL

I have enjoyed his shed appendages both with the blood of tomatoes and also with garlic and oil. Something must be responsible for those shed appendages...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:12047
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.