Go back
a fairly new theory

a fairly new theory

Spirituality

Vote Up
Vote Down

Please check out this link: http://www.venganza.org/
it provides a theory just as relevent as any current religous one. personally i still do not believe any of it is true as i am an atheist but bible bashers (and other followers of other religons) can't really deny the letters points are good without weakening their own arguments....

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Rolfey
Please check out this link: http://www.venganza.org/
it provides a theory just as relevent as any current religous one. personally i still do not believe any of it is true as i am an atheist but bible bashers (and other followers of other religons) can't really deny the letters points are good without weakening their own arguments....
yes, but the difference between this and other religions is that the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER actually exists. We can infer it. We know spaghetti exists, and we know things can fly. Good start, no?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by scottishinnz
yes, but the difference between this and other religions is that the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER actually exists. We can infer it. We know spaghetti exists, and we know things can fly. Good start, no?
a fair point to be sure.

Vote Up
Vote Down

I think I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore I am.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
I think I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore I am.
The more I read of the Spirituality Forum, the more attractive the Pastafarians appear.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Nordlys
I think I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore I am.
no...if everyone thinks your the flying spaghetti monster, you would think you are. if the flying spaghetti monster was real thing you could become then you may actually become the fsm.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by windmill
no...if everyone thinks your the flying spaghetti monster, you would think you are. if the flying spaghetti monster was real thing you could become then you may actually become the fsm.
Come on people! The FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER should always be capitalised! Please bear that in mind!

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Rolfey
Please check out this link: http://www.venganza.org/
it provides a theory just as relevent as any current religous one. personally i still do not believe any of it is true as i am an atheist but bible bashers (and other followers of other religons) can't really deny the letters points are good without weakening their own arguments....
You've just changed my life.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Come on people! The FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER should always be capitalised! Please bear that in mind!
Ramen, brother.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Starrman
Ramen, brother.
😕

Vote Up
Vote Down

so no argument from the fanatics then?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Rolfey
so no argument from the fanatics then?
Sure. What do you want to argue about?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
Sure. What do you want to argue about?
did you actually read the letter on the linked page in the original post? if so, do you understand the point of it?!

i'd like to see/hear what religous people think of this as I've heard no comeback whenever it has been referenced.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Rolfey
did you actually read the letter on the linked page in the original post? if so, do you understand the point of it?!

i'd like to see/hear what religous people think of this as I've heard no comeback whenever it has been referenced.
Yes. Pastafarianism is not new to this forum. IMO it's a laughable parody, nothing more. Anything can be made fun of, you just need to know how.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Halitose
Yes. Pastafarianism is not new to this forum. IMO it's a laughable parody, nothing more. Anything can be made fun of, you just need to know how.
i had not realised this had been covered alreadly so gladly offer apologies for repeating - can you possibly point me in the direction of the existing discussion?!

while it is made in a very comical way don't you find the point that dawkins made originally a valid argument against the existence of god?