Miniature Giant Flying Spaghetti Space Hamster Monster

>> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Hello, folks. Username Bloodrunsclear, here. I have my thinking muffin hat on in order to tell you something that's important, but ultimately painful. I have to dispel a legend of our times that has brought peace and joy to many, that has buoyed the hopes and dreams of an entire society, but at long last, must be dispelled. I am, of course, referring to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now, many of you might be under the misapprehension that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually a rather crude construct--a logical experiment by atheists in order to discredit Christians and other religions without actually thinking about the issue of religion. But we all know that atheists, by definition, are rational and thoughtful people and wouldn't stoop to such childish ends-- >> SAERAIN: Naturally, satire is for the unthinking and the childish. Also, note that whether or not something is childish has no bearing on whether or not it's true or existent. The universe doesn't care. As a Christian, I'd think that you'd be receptive to this and even passionate about it, yet this fallacious implication that things are more likely to be true because they do good things or make you feel fuzzy inside is something that you appear to resort to often. Though it also occurs to me that this would have been a terrific way of cluing us in that you're a poe, which I suspect you may be; although if you're not, I know that suggestion is offensive. Too bad, really. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, we can only assume that their constant praise of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is because they actually believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, I'm afraid to tell you that logically, theologically, historically, and scientifically, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a likely fact. First of all, let's consider what we know about this monster. Pictures of the creature that I have seen represent it as essentially a big pile of spaghetti. Now, in Earth terms, spaghetti is a tangible substance. It has mass. It has location. So, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, in fact, made out of spaghetti--for some reason spaghetti that can fly, and has eyes, and moves around, apparently--this spaghetti monster can be found. If it has mass and if it has location, then it has a place we can find it. It has ways of determining that it exists, because apparently it exists in real space. So, the way to determine whether or not the Flying Spaghetti Monster really exists is to simply search to find it. I guess you could argue that this Flying Spaghetti Monster is made out of magical spaghetti that cannot be located, or magical spaghetti that is invisible, but that leads us to another train of thought entirely. If the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in fact, has weight and dimensions and mass and location, then you can disprove it by simply proving that it doesn't exist anywhere! In order for a thing that is tangible to exist, it must exist. So, there you go: first proof that the Flying Spaghetti Monster probably isn't real. >> SAERAIN: Elementary, my dear Watson. Also note that you can replace 'Flying Spaghetti Monster' with 'God' throughout everything you just said, which is the point of the satire--and I assume you know this and have much better arguments to come. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: But let's consider other trains of thought. Now, going by the wild accusation that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is, in fact, a crude and badly thought out similie of religion, let's consider the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster might be argued to be invisible. M'kay. >> SAERAIN: M'kay. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: If the Flying Spaghetti Monster is invisible, how do we know what the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks like? If we do know what the Flying Spaghetti Monster looks like, is he manifested to his followers, say? Or has there been eyewitness accounts of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Or are all accounts of the Flying Spaghetti Monster pictures of the Flying Spaghetti Monster--it's hard to say--really just artist speculation? >> SAERAIN: Still completely applicable to any god. I know that you can do better than this. You have the look. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: This, again, has never been told to me. Usually it's enough for an atheist to simply say, 'Flying Spaghetti Monster, ooh!' and then go away. >> SAERAIN: Yeah, it's awfully familiar, isn't it? It's almost as if it were a mimickry of religious behavior. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: And frankly, that's hardly scientific, is it? >> SAERAIN: No, it isn't. So are you going to talk science? Look, if you took the time to look at this, to look into it, and make these amazingly, beautifully, poetically ironic attempts at debunking it, the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster, ooh!' clearly served at least part of its purpose. You're thinking about it--trying to appear to think about it--and making comparisons, trying to defend your beliefs, to turn your faith into actual reason. You might even hit the jackpot and come up with a new argument that amounts to more than 'Yahweh, ooh!' We can dream. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: But, again, these people obviously know what they're doing, because they continually tell me so. >> SAERAIN: What's wrong? You can't simply have faith what they have to say is true? Although it seems useless to bother claiming to someone that you are more rational or logical than they, I think you know this when you employ this rhetoric yourself. Note that you seem to enjoy it, and it makes your opponents angry and eager to prove you wrong, and that's good. Don't you agree? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can only assume, if it is not, in fact, tangible, is magical--and if it is magical, then we have to have a way of knowing that. >> SAERAIN: Yeah, how do we know if something is magical? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Which leads us to another train of thought, which is: how do we know about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? >> SAERAIN: Oh, OK. I guess we're not addressing the magic thing. Carry on. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster like, say, UFOs--in which case we have pictures, we have things of that nature to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real--again, I have not actually seen any pictures to depict the Flying Spaghetti Monster in this way, so that's doubtful-- >> SAERAIN: Oh, crap! That's Flying Spaghetti Monster: 0; God: 0. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: --or is there a historical account of the Flying Spaghetti Monster--scripture, say? Again, assuming that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really simply [an] excuse for not thinking, just a silly little logical experiment-- >> SAERAIN: It is. It's parodying religion, the most socially effective and popular excuse for not thinking that there is. I noticed this in your comments on CultOfDusty's video, as well. You have this talent for projection, an ability to attack and debunk yourself in a way that's just delicious. It's almost too accurate, as if it's intentional, and yet you do simultaneously seem sincere, which is why I think you'd make a great poe. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: --then to make this Flying Spaghetti Monster a true analogy of religion, you would have to assume what a religion is. >> SAERAIN: Sounds good. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Religions don't just pop out of nowhere. >> SAERAIN: Define 'pop out of' and 'nowhere.' >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: They're informed by revelation. They're informed by historical account. They're informed by cultural mythology. >> SAERAIN: OK, let's break this down: >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Revelation. >> SAERAIN: Anyone can claim revelation, and it's something that is done with the Flying Spaghetti Monster all the time. Hopefully not sincerely, but that's kind of the point: that sincere and insincere claims of revelation are indistinguishable without being that person. They're useless as evidence to the rest of us. Grounds for speculation? ***, yeah, go hog wild. There's no reason to discourage speculation when it remains in the context of speculation. But what you're saying here is that the evidence for a belief is the belief itself. Right? 'That guy believes in a god because it revealed itself to him and we should believe it because he believes it.' Tell me if I'm misunderstanding you, but what is it to take revelation as evidence but to value hearsay in a way that we would never accept on any topic but this? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Historical account. >> SAERAIN: I don't know what you could mean by this that would differ from revelation. You mean historical account of revelation, right? One of these is redundant. I would have just said historical account, because that covers it, but I'm just being pedantic. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Cultural mythology. >> SAERAIN: [Nods.] >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, in order for the Flying Spaghetti Monster to actually be a religious figure, there has to be either a historical account, revelation, or some kind of cultural mythology! There doesn't seem to be one! >> SAERAIN: What does the Flying Spaghetti Monster being a religious figure or not have to do with whether or not it exists? I'm pretty sure we all agree, without even beginning this discussion, that it's not a religious figure, because we understand that people don't really believe in its existence. I can't determine whether you're unknowingly going off-track here, making an intentional detour, or if this is really a part of your understanding of what it means for a thing to be true or existent. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Now, if the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually knows that he is the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then, again, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the easiest thing in the world to disprove! Simply point to the creator, say, 'You created the Flying Spaghetti Monster,' and if he admits it, there you go: proof. >> SAERAIN: So, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is new enough for a guy to be alive and available to interview and credit individually for its entrance into public knowledge. Yeah, that sure is true! So, Doc Brown takes us to Bronze Age Palestine and introduces us to a guy who tells this crazy story about two naked teenagers who screwed us all over by listening to a spirit who wanted them to acquire the knowledge of good and evil; and for some reason that was bad--God much preferred them to persist in ignorance. So, he punished mankind with mortality; women, specifically, with childbirth pains and subjugation under men; and after tormenting their incestuous offspring for a very long time, God didn't like what they did with their world one bit and in his all-knowing, all-wise, all-powerfulness, he thought--nay, he KNEW all along--that the best solution to this was to flood the planet and put two of every animal on a boat. As you do. Later, in Minas Tirith, God impregnates a teen with himself so that he may be born to be killed to save us from him--and comes back to life to prove it, God damn it! Even though people supposedly came back to life all the time in those days, for some reason Jesus' resurrection proved that he was the son of God, or that he was God--and then he was known as Jesus the White. Anyway, we know the Bible didn't come from one man, and Christians don't claim that it did, but for this analogy let's assume that it did, and here we are talking to the man, and he tells us this story and all about how he made it all up. For the sake of psychoanalyzing you, would you really not assume that this was simply the way God chose to reveal himself? Through the imagination of this man? Whether that's the way the man sees it or not? Isn't that exactly what so many Christians claim? That yeah, the Bible was written by men, but God wrote it through them? Why not the same for Our Noodly Lord? By the way: >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: And if he admits it, there you go: proof. >> SAERAIN: Simply claiming to have been the source of a claim is proof that it's false? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: At least, in some form. >> SAERAIN: What form is that? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: If the creator of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, however, is unwilling to admit that he created the Flying Spaghetti Monster--for what reason, I don't know--then, again, there are other ways of disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because if there's only one account of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that account has no validity, no grounding in historical fact, no grounding in cultural mythology--then, again, easiest thing in the world to disprove: you made it up. >> SAERAIN: I'd like to know what grounding in historical fact you think your god has. The historical fact that he's been believed in for a long time and by many people? If the Flying Spaghetti Monster sticks around for a couple thousand years, does this lend validity to the claim? Or are you referring to the political events that did occur during the time that the relevant portions of the Bible would have been derived from? Because yeah, no one's saying that Christianity was made up in the 17th Century or something, or that it fell from the sky during the Pleistocene and predicted all of these events. No, we know it comes from the time that the Bible's contents suggest, and as one would expect, includes many historical events. If I write a Flying Spaghetti Cookbook that describes the reign of George Bush the Sequel, the events of 9/11, the Gulf oil spill, the Haiti earthquake, the 2010 olympics and episodes of American Idol, and alien xenoarcheologists a couple thousand years from now discover it amongst a time capsule filled with Flying Spagetti Monster plushies and posters, does this lend validity to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or just show that, yep, that idea sure is from that time? And cultural mythology is mythology. You'll have to explain to me why you keep mentioning it as criteria lending validity to mythology. Or is it that? Is that it? You're not setting out to disprove the existince of the Flying Spagetti Monster, you're setting out to disprove that it's a religion. Because these are criteria not for verifying the existence or truth of a thing, but for verifying that it is or was believed in. [Given what you said earlier about revelation], that is consistent. 'Belief is evidence of belief and belief is reason to believe.' That's interesting. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have historical scripture associated? If it does, then it would be actually quite presumptuous to suggest that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist-- >> SAERAIN: Really? All it needs is a book that documents some current events along with its claims in order to become more probable in your eyes? That's actually quite worrisome. I hope that it's not the case. Then again, it would account for your religiosity. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: --because you have evidence of a people witnessing the Flying Spaghetti Monster! If you have multiple witnesses of people seeing the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it's presumable works, then, again, you have more evidence still! >> SAERAIN: Of people who believe in the monster, absolutely. Like Santa, Bigfoot, faeries, chupacabra, Nessie, redcaps, Greys--lots of Greys in the 20th century--vampires, werewolves, ghosts, spontaneous combustion... look, suppose we find writings from all across Europe and Asia describing a rainforest that existed in what is now Amsterdam. It had eight hundred foot trees with violet leaves and a population of winged pigmen. You kind of want to look into that. That's really interesting and, if remotely true, would be of intense scientific interest. But there's nothing there, no fossilized giant evergreens, or everviolets, or winged pigmen. Excuse me. You file this in with Atlantis and everything else. The fact that myths spread and grow and thrive in the zeitgeist is evidence of their appeal, evidence of something going on in the common psychology to give rise to this appeal, evidence that it's perhaps effective to some social end, but it's not evidence of them not being myths. Adding that the thing you're looking for is probably instrinsically undetectable, indemonstrable, and unsupportable, only confounds the claim further, it doesn't help validate it. Of course, this doesn't mean that you don't look for it. It doesn't mean you ignore people's claims and never look into them to see if there's anything to them, if any evidence can be found, if any theory can actually be formed, but it also doesn't make it rational to just believe, does it? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: If some of those accounts are not religious, then, again, that is further proof of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's at least presumed validity. >> SAERAIN: Wait, what? Non-religious historical accounts of a god? Setting aside that this, once again, is proof of nothing but belief, do you have any examples? The mind boggles. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: It's something to investigate, it's not something to ignore! Holy ***! Yeah, you're right! If only we had some way of investigating claims and testing ideas, some way to make sure that new evidence doesn't just get ignored or twisted by people who don't like it.... >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: And, lastly-- >> SAERAIN: Oh, we're already done, halfway through the video? Cool. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: --does the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually affect mankind? Or the nature of the universe. If the answer to both these questions is 'no,' then why do we care if there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster? >> SAERAIN: Indeed. Are you sure you're not on our side? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Atheists tend to present the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an object of worship, but I'm not entirely certain why. Did the Flying Spaghetti Monster die for our sins? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster represent the salvation of mankind? >> SAERAIN: What on Earth does that have to do with it being true or not? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: If so, how do we know these things? Did the Flying Spaghetti Monster tell us? He doesn't seem to have a mouth! >> SAERAIN: You mean in the artistic representations of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that present it as a physical being? Didn't you say that this was easily debunked by looking for and failing to find it? Are you even bothering to try to apply these criteria to your own God or not? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is totally inconsequential to the existence of the universe or the nature of humankind, then whether or not he exists, it does not matter. >> SAERAIN: Ah. So, you mean an omniscient and omnipotent deity who has an ultimate plan, but gave us free will (disguised as predictable electrical impulses and chemical reactions) to do whatever we want, but will punish us if we don't do what it wants--because it goes against its plan (the passive aggressive ***!)--and designed everything, but did so in a way that everything occurs in exactly the way one would expect if the universe hadn't been designed, yet expects us to believe in it, and all the while does not appear interfere or involve itself with the natural processes of reality or in any empircal way exist... you're saying this is inconsequential and senseless and there's no good reason to believe in it? Yeah, incidentally, I agree. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: What are the dogmas and creeds associated with the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? >> SAERAIN: Wait, wasn't that last point supposed to be your last point? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: And, lastly-- >> SAERAIN: Never mind, it doesn't matter. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: What are the dogmas and creeds associated with the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are there any? >> SAERAIN: Really? That would be evidence? Of [being] a religious figure or of existing? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Now, the only dogma of this religion I've been able to determine is the constant repeating of the word 'ramen.' Now, first off, ramen has nothing to do with spaghetti, so I'm not sure how that ties in. Second of all, I'm not sure how this word was learned, because as far as I know the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster never had any ministry. Third of all, the word 'ramen' doesn't seem to mean anything except for its normal everyday term. So, apparently, people are simply associating everything with noodles with the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, which, again, is an unfounded faith-- >> SAERAIN: If your point here is that the Church of the Flying Spagetti Monster is silly: yeah, well done. I'm sure we're all enlightened, now. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: --I feel, because, as far as we know, the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster never said to do this. >> SAERAIN: What is it about hypothetical beings having told you to do things that you find so compelling? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So if worship of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster has no worship associated with it beyond the repeating of a single word, then two questions spring to mind: one is why worship the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? As far as I know, unless he's a creator deity-- >> SAERAIN: He is. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: --there is no power associated with the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster-- >> SAERAIN: Clearly, there is: he created the universe and has a very special relationship with pirates. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: --I mean, how much power can be associated to what is [essentially] a big ball of spaghetti? >> SAERAIN: Indeed. Who would believe something like that, anyway? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Two: >> SAERAIN: Two? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Can you be certain that you are worshipping the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster correctly? >> SAERAIN: Man, what are you doing? What does this have to do with existence or not? Your whole video is like this. What does it matter whether we're worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster--or Yahweh, or Quetzecoatl, or Amaterasu, or Cernunnos, or Shiva--correctly if we have no reason to believe that it exists? It's like worrying about whether or not bearing the One Ring might cause cancer. Although I'm sure you're thinking, 'Well, there is no mention in the Lord of the Rings of the One Ring causing cancer, so, naturally, this is an unfounded [worry]. Whereas the Bible clearly outlines commands delivered by God, so it is therefore rational to take these commands seriously without further investigation.' But never mind what the close-minded literalists say, the One Ring is a metaphor for nuclear power! >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Because as far as I know, again, the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster has no recorded instances of telling his followers what to do or say. >> SAERAIN: Yep, there it is, again! How is this relevant to the question of its existence, again? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So I can only assume that, even if the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist, that he religion based on him is totally fabricated and provably so. >> SAERAIN: Oh, I see. It doesn't matter, you just think it's really important to show that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion, as if that matters for some reason, and wilfully ignoring the point of that parody entirely. By the way: >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: [...] totally fabricated and provably so. >> SAERAIN: I'm not sure you understand what the words 'fabricated' and 'provably' mean. Even if the God of the Bible exists, the Bible is fabricated. Even if it was written by God's own immaterial hand, it is fabricated. And provably so: it's a book. Books are fabricated. Ideas are fabricated. Everything made intentionally is fabricated. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Are there modern day accounts of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? >> SAERAIN: Sure, how many do you want? But more importantly, how would you verify them? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Now, unlike religion, the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster apparently appeared at some undetermined time and was then worshipped by a few scattered people, normally in a satirical sense, but as far as I know, there are no modern day accounts of eyewitness sightings of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's no instances of prayer to the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster yielding any effects. There's no scientific evidence for the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster. So, again, if the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster previously had only one appearance--presumably he even had this appearance, to give rise to the religion of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster--if there are no further instances of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster having any effect on the world at large, again, why is there any need to worship the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? >> SAERAIN: You are an atheist, aren't you? You spent the majority of this video, and highlighted it here, replacing 'God' with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster,' which is exactly the p--wait, what was it you said back before the... >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Unlike religion-- [Pause.] >>BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Unlike religion, [...] there are no modern day accounts of eyewitness sightings. [...] Unlike religion, [...] there's no instances of prayer [...] yielding any effects. [...] Unlike religion, [...] there's no scientific evidence. [...] Unlike religion, [...] there's no scientific evidence. [...] Unlike religion, [...] there's no scientific evidence-- [Pause.] >> SAERAIN: There is scientific evidence of religion. What does that mean? I mean, there sure is scientific evidence that religions exist and that people are, indeed, religious about them. There are religious people. We can very easily scientifically verify these things. Now, if you're talking about scientific evidence of a god described in a religion, that is a bombshell of a claim. Whatever evidence that you have for your god or any other sort of creator deity would be very important to science, to humanity, and it is very unethical for you to be keeping this data to yourself. Now, I've seen you reference possession of this knowledge in video comments and maybe you've presented it to someone, and maybe whatever it is that you feel is scientific evidence for your god is something that you're tired of repeating--why, I can't imagine, if it's such sought after, incredibly, indescribably valuable information that could make you unspeakably wealthy and admired for all time--but either way, I implore you to please present it to me for my perusal. Though I hope, for your integrity's sake, and my blood pressure, that it's not simply more evidence of belief. Because I'm pretty sure [we agree] that people do, in fact, believe in God and not in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Unlike religion, as well, the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't seem to have anything to do with humankind. Take the religion of Christianity. It is very much grounded in the human condition. The moral lessons of Jesus are even admitted by non-believers to be essentially a very good moral code. >> SAERAIN: Once again, goodness does not equal truth. Both are quite valuable, and it may matter very much for human well-being how good a moral code is, but in what way is the agreement of people that a moral code is good evidence of anything other that they agree that a moral code is good? Though, I'd contend that the Bible, including the New Testament, is a very poor source of morality, indeed. Disgustingly so. It's terrifying to think that there are people who credit the Bible or Jesus for their moral values, rather than crediting their moral values for those things that they find morally good about the Bible. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: And, of course, the story of God becoming [a] man is about as human as you can get! >> SAERAIN: Yeah. That's great. Point? It makes you feel special, therefore it's true? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: However, the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm not sure I'd be able to take in a human context, because, for one thing, spaghetti, as far as I know, has no religious significance-- >> SAERAIN: Oh, it does to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Nor does it have any connection with Man. So, why the manifestation of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster is, in fact, a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm not certain. Perhaps devotees of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster can tell me. For argument's sake, let's consider the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster as some sort of god. If that's the case, shouldn't the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster be able to take on any form he pleases? Why a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, again? A Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster is not associated with anything we can really understand. Also, it seems rather silly. >> SAERAIN: Yeah, it's real silly, isn't it? Religions totally don't apply magnificent properties to silly things, right? >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, if the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster is attempting to have his followers take him seriously, why a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster? And, again, it has no ties into moral truth or the human condition or the nature of the universe, as far as I know, because none of these seem associated with spaghetti or giant flying spaghetti monsters. So, there you have it, folks, my public service to explain away this benign but ultimately flawed religion. And, also, to tell you that if this construct was in some way [an] attack against religion, it's not a very good one. >> SAERAIN: You keep suggesting that, and I'd like to hear in what way that's so, some time. All you seem to have is, 'People don't actually believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, therefore the parody fails.' Damn good show. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, the next time someone attempts to disprove religion, or scorn it, by presenting the example of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can remember the points I made and easily disprove the existence of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster. >> SAERAIN: And, in the same breath, God. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: God and gods are a little tougher and require actual thinking. >> SAERAIN: Go on! >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: Because they, unlike the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, have traditions, history, and evidence associated. Big. Difference. >> SAERAIN: Again, how on Earth does tradition matter in verifying a truth claim of the existence of the subject of those traditions? How do historical facts that show, indeed, this religion has been around, matter in verifying the truth claims of that religion? And what evidence? Believing in God doesn't make him exist, and beliving that evidence of God exists doesn't make it so. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: And if you were thinking, and rational, and logical, you would realize this. >> SAERAIN: It's like you completed my sentence. Wait, if I were thinking, rational, and logical, I would fail to provide thinking, rational, logical arguments whilst spending 13 minutes parodying myself debunking a parody of myself. Huh. >> BLOODRUNSCLEAR: So, farewell Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster; you did no one any good. >> SAERAIN: It sure is. If you live up to this claimed value on this subject some day, I remain interested. Because as it stands, although I have no reason to believe that you're an irrational person in other matters or to suggest that you're somehow 'unthinking,' whatever that means, on this subject it is evident that you do apply much of your ability for critical thought that I'm sure you possess. I'm sure than anyone living with an intact prefrontal cortex is capable of critical thought on every subject, but some, it seems, turn it on and off periodically as it suits their preconceptions on certain subjects. In other words, you may be a very bright guy, but you're being very stupid about this. I hope that you understand and appreciate that distinction.