The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Invisible Pink Unicorn Decries “Cult” of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism

October 28, 2005 | 27 Comments

New York, New York, October 27, 2005
Special to The Raving Atheist

The Invisible Pink Unicorn — the world’s oldest and most respected parody deity — has denounced Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as a “cult.”

“Mainline philosophical atheism has being cheapened by the introduction of this recent, imperfect analogy,” said the IPU. “Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a commercial fad which exploits the needs of the non-gulllible for quick and easy ridicule of religion.”

The IPU noted that the FSM is visible, rendering impossible mockery of the theistic argument that God’s elusiveness proves His existence. “Countless Christians have fallen into the trap of arguing that absence of evidence for me is evidence of my absence, only to realize, too late, that the same standard vanquishes their own phantom God,” she said. “But they can just point to pictures of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and say “that’s ridiculous.'”

The IPU also touted her own long intellectual pedigree, noting that she was painstakingly developed by bearded engineering graduate students at “The Spaghetti Monster, however, was cooked up in a couple of minutes by a lone crank in an angry letter to a Kansas school board, a document which proves he was just made up.” In contrast, the IPU’s origins are mysterious, clouded in the murky pre-history of internet usenet boards.


27 Responses to “Invisible Pink Unicorn Decries “Cult” of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism”

  1. Dada Saves
    October 28th, 2005 @ 10:23 am

    Hate to spoil the picnic IPO and FSM, but The Screaming Blue Ants are the way and the light.

  2. jahrta
    October 28th, 2005 @ 10:46 am

    IPO? Invisible Pink One? I would have thought at first it was a typo for IPU, but it goes on throughout the article.

  3. Viole
    October 28th, 2005 @ 10:56 am

    Sigh. RA, the IPU is female.

    Actually, I agree with the IPU, though. Perhaps the grandstanding which brought the FSM popularity tossed it into the fringe of mainstream culture, but it is a commercial fad that may or may not take off. If it does, though, it really won’t be a symbol of atheism any longer.

    The IPU, though, is a much quieter mockery. More subtle, and less likely to be hijacked by high school kids looking to rebel.

  4. Kate B.
    October 28th, 2005 @ 1:33 pm

    “The IPU, though, is a much quieter mockery. More subtle, and less likely to be hijacked by high school kids looking to rebel

    Viole, are you admitting that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is Satan?

    Kidding, of course.

  5. Spaghetti Monsterist
    October 28th, 2005 @ 2:53 pm

    You are all bound for the lake of boiling alfredo for this insolence. Denounce your heretical unicornic cult and join the Meatic sect of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism (reformation of 1728) before it is too late. Remember, no man can be perfectly al dente except through The Noodly One.

  6. GeneralZod
    October 28th, 2005 @ 3:03 pm

    I think IPO is another name for the IPU. It means Invisible Pink One-icorn. See? It is the same.

  7. benjamin
    October 28th, 2005 @ 3:10 pm

    I estimate FSM is already known by more of the general public than IPU. IPU should go trott up Mt. Olympus and stay with all the other gods of yesteryear.

  8. tracy
    October 28th, 2005 @ 3:12 pm

    The IPU (Blessed be Her Holy Hooves) is clearly the one true parody diety.

    I’ll have no talk of this young imposter over at my place.

  9. Kate
    October 28th, 2005 @ 3:37 pm

    Boy, are dee people up in arms!

  10. MBains
    October 28th, 2005 @ 4:24 pm

    What truly makes His Noodley magnificence most marvelous and proves, beyone all doubt, is command to us, His Pastafarian Noodlettes, to go forth and Piracize the unbelievers!


    We be goin’ t’ Horn in on her IPUitous racket!

  11. MBains
    October 28th, 2005 @ 4:25 pm

    Whoa! I didn’t intend that to be so Sensical!


  12. Justin Winokur
    October 28th, 2005 @ 4:27 pm

    why compete anyway. I would say everybody should go through with the more popular one regardless of what it is.

    The goals of all parody religions are they same: To show the fallacy in believing in theism or any deities in the first place.

    Maybe some day, FSM will be like christianity. There is no doubt in my mind that all organized religious were originally the work of a fantastical cult. it is well known that Christianity started as a cult but people fail to see that there may have been people benefiting from this cult.

    People just want something to believe in because it makes them feel like life isn’t crazy and they can’t change things.

  13. a different tim
    October 28th, 2005 @ 6:22 pm

    “The IPU, though, is a much quieter mockery. More subtle, and less likely to be hijacked by high school kids looking to rebel.”

    I’d be happy if I invernted a parody deiaty that was highjacked by rebellious high school kids.

    if ID gets introduced in schools, rebellious high school kids may be the last best hope for america.

    I have a happy vision of high school kids bunking off the ID classes and reading Darwin as an act of rebellion……

  14. a different tim
    October 28th, 2005 @ 6:23 pm

    crap. more typos….

  15. Jason Malloy
    October 28th, 2005 @ 6:39 pm

    This is hilarious. It is funny how older religions use their own greater historical obscurity as a mark of authenticity. The less facts the better in religion.

    BTW, RA, it would B IPU not IPO

  16. sternwallow
    October 28th, 2005 @ 7:38 pm

    A key problem with all parody occurs when the intended audience is too dense to realize it is parody and not “real” (whatever that means).
    In this case the IPU, speaking to us as the IPO, is surely lampooning the skirmishes between the other religions over who is the more ancient and authoritative.
    This parody is made obvious by a simple comparison between the IPO claims and those of the true religion, hyppogalarianism.

  17. sternwallow
    October 28th, 2005 @ 7:39 pm

    Sorry, typo, it is “hyppogelarianism”. May the Hyppogel forgive me.

  18. Tenspace
    October 28th, 2005 @ 8:54 pm

    Did no one catch the title, “Invisible Pink Omnicorn”? Apparently, RA is privy to secret information regarding hooved deities.

  19. Dick Durata
    October 28th, 2005 @ 10:05 pm

    First, is it IP Omnicorn or IP Unicorn?
    In any case, the ‘symbol’ that they put on their t-shirts and mugs and shit sucks. I had imagined a beautiful pony-like unicorn with a long flowing mane and tail, pink or violet in color, maybe with a dick coming out of its forehead.
    FSM is going to chop IPO (or IPU) into ragu.

  20. Jason Malloy
    October 29th, 2005 @ 3:34 am

    Ahh, here we go.

  21. Felcher
    October 31st, 2005 @ 3:43 am

    Maybe FSM should fuck IPU to create a unified diety we can all get behind

  22. severalspecies
    October 31st, 2005 @ 1:36 pm

    Neither the IPU or FSM has any chance against ME (Moving Elevator). It’s been endorsed by the God Squad. (See God Squad Review CXLVI, Mon, Oct 24, 2005)

    May your elevator keep moving in the right direction. Amen

  23. DamnRight
    October 31st, 2005 @ 4:22 pm

    … Damn… now my Pascal’s Wager is all screwed up… too many choices, too few eternities…

  24. Tatarize
    November 1st, 2005 @ 6:05 am

    IPU is a much more intellectual parody. It catches a number of really brilliant arguments and demolishes them all. Although, it doesn’t have a proper response to Pascal. See, FSM has a beer volcano and stripper factory which is a reason one should believe in FSM. IPU simply crushes theists under her holy hooves.

  25. Cloudywithachanceofcheeseburgers
    November 3rd, 2005 @ 12:03 pm

    Invisible pink unicorns make the best steaks.

    And steaks go great with pasta.

  26. IrnBru001
    November 10th, 2005 @ 4:59 pm

    I’m sticking with IPU! None of this new age FSM.

  27. Gruesome_hound
    November 5th, 2009 @ 8:13 am

    Concerning the usual flying teapot, spaghetti monster and invisible unicorns analogies, I think it is important to distinguish between atheism ( I know beyond all reasonable doubt that those entities does not exist) and agnosticism ( I don’t know whether they exist or not).
    I am pretty sure none of those entities exist not only because of the absence of evidences (this by itself would only justify agnosticism) but also because there are incredibly strong reasons militating against their existence.
    Take for example the celestial teapot: teapots are products of an human mind, contrarily to biological systems, there are no conceivable natural pathways by which they could have evolved, and no human being has ever been at the surface or even in the vicinity of Mars (and even if some secrete mission has done that, it is extremely unlikely they would have brought one teapot with them and let it fall in the space) , therefore one can conclude with almost certainty that there is no teapot orbiting around Mars.

    Let us now consider other scenarios for which we have no evidence at all: somewhere in the multiverse, there is an intelligent species looking like bears, there exists a parasitic species capable of possessing their host’s brain like the Goaulds (Stargates) or hives (dark skies).
    I am “agnostic” but not atheist about these possibilities, because while there exist clearly no evidence, there is also nothing which speaks against that.
    Similarly, I am atheist about any kind of invisible animals or visible or invisible unicorns existing on the earth, but I am agnostic about the possibilities that such creature may live on an unknown planet of an unknown remote paralell universe.

    I therefore think that the principle (No evidences => non-existence) is deeply flawed, for affirming that something does not exist, we ought to provide reasons for not believing that.
    So, I believe that atheist have to give solid grounds for believing with almost certainty there exist no god(s). These may be the evidence of meaningless evils, the widespread religious confusion, the numerous examples of bad design in nature and so on and so forth.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links