No, God And The Flying Spaghetti Monster Are Not The Same

Among the most powerful ways of demoralizing or belittling an opponent is to mock their position. It’s not one I recommend, but it is the source of a particular kind of argument one hears from time to time from atheists in discussion with Christians.

“Believing in God makes about as much logical sense as believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster,” is one form of mockery that, as’s J. Warner Wallace points out, was first heard in 2005 during debates in Kansas over whether to include Intelligent Design evidence as an alternative to evolutionary theory in public schools.

The most unfortunate aspect of this retort is the fact that Christianity, unlike any other world religion, is based on a fact in history for which there is significant evidence that can be assessed, verified and then accepted or rejected. And that makes all the difference:


Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here:

9 thoughts on “No, God And The Flying Spaghetti Monster Are Not The Same”

    1. Tell me, Raoul, what proof would it take to convince you that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the grave three days after dying on the cross of crucifixion?


  1. Let us untangle this a bit. 1. The part of the Bible that people proposed teaching in public schools in Kansas was from Genesis. This had nothing to do with the New Testament, Palestine, Pontius Pilate, Rome etc., etc. If there is substantial historical evidence for the creation story in Genesis, well, that is news to me. 2. I would really like to know who to attribute the quoted sentence to. Meaning no disrespect, but I doubt anyone said it. 3. The origins of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which we all really know is a gentle form of satire, is to point out, correctly, that while intelligent design does try to present a logical case for a creator, but it does not present a logical case for a particular creator.


    1. Regarding the “quoted sentence,” I wrote it as a descriptive illustration of the process described by J. Warner Wallace. My apologies if it was not sufficiently an obvious description rather than an unattributed quote from somebody else.


    2. I would also say regarding your point three that it is a “gentle form of satire” that all satire is a kind of the sort of mockery to which I was pointing, kind or otherwise.


Comments are closed.