Gut Rumbles
 

June 22, 2003

me on religion

I am an athiest.

I don't believe in God, I don't believe in heaven and I don't believe in ANY kind of afterlife. I believe that when you die, the lights go out and they don't come back on again. You're worm food after that.

I'll argue politics until I am blue in the face and I'll call you all kinds of creative, semi-obscene names if I believe that you are an ignorant fucktard because you are PROUD of voting TWICE for Bill Clinton. You fit the profile of most trolls I read on other people's sites. You may as well have "DICKWIT ARE ME" tattooed on your forehead. I'll call you on that kind of bullshittery.

But I don't argue religion. You either believe or you don't, and I am not going to change your mind, either way. You won't change mine, either. The fact that I think God is a horse's ass is MY humble opinion, and the fact that he hasn't hit me with a lightning bolt after 51 years of saying that he is a horse's ass confirms my opinion that if he DOES exist, he is one incompetent sunofabitch.

Got-damn! If I were God, I would have fired ME a long time ago.

I kinda like what DC thornton has to say:

Declaring yourself to be an atheist or an agnostic doesn't grant you license to slander or vilify others because they don't share your unbelief or skepticism. I get annoyed by it, I don't see any helpful purpose in it, and I personally refuse to engage in it.

That's why I don't argue religion.

I don't like being told what to do, but I ESPECIALLY don't like it when "God" gave some prick a message to pass on to me. If I were an omnipotent being, would I use Jerry Falwell as my messenger? Don't you think I could handle the message MYSELF, since I'm omnipotent?

Hell, I'll come see you PERSONALLY and burn a bush in your fucking bedroom to get your attention if I really want it. I'm GOD. I don't need no stinking Falwells to speak for me. I don't need ANYBODY to speak for me if I really want to make a point.

I've asked God to answer my prayers, but all he ever sent me were Falwells and Sharptons to pass along his message. I've been put on "hold" and sent off to deal with a God-bureaucrat instead of getting a straight answer from the top. THE MAN doesn't have time for me. He INVENTED time! But he can't break his schedule to talk to me? God is TOO BUSY? Sounds like a time-management issue to me.

Yeah, I'm asking for that lightning bolt. If God worked for ME, I'd fire his incompetent ass.

That's not an arguement. That's a statement of belief.

Comments

God spared you because he likes your blog too.

Posted by: McGehee on June 22, 2003 05:25 PM

He has indeed spared Acidman.
G-D did not invent time, he is timeless.
He is limitless, and we are [time] limited.
And just where do you think you got your devine sense of humour from Rob?

Posted by: quark2 on June 22, 2003 05:51 PM

Maybe God hasn't struck you down because he's holding you up to the rest of us an example.

Posted by: Ralph Gizzip on June 22, 2003 07:32 PM

Oops, wrong button. As I was saying, sort of, I think there probably is a God of some sort, I just don't think he really gives as much of a damn about us here as some more religious types think.

Posted by: Mike Hendrix on June 23, 2003 09:14 AM

"You either believe it or you don't?" Why doesn't the same theory apply to political or other ideological views?

People change their views on religion all the time. There are one billion Christians and one billion Muslims in the world today, whereas there weren't any two thousand years ago. So there was a conscious process of persuasion, indoctrination and conversion. People weren't just born "believing or not."

Unfortunately, religious beliefs are generally stupidier, more illogical and less substantiated than any other form of belief. There's no more reason to immunize them from criticism than any other kind of superstition.

Posted by: The Raving Atheist on June 23, 2003 12:16 PM

"I've asked God to answer my prayers, but all he ever sent me were Falwells and Sharptons to pass along his message. I've been put on "hold" and sent off to deal with a God-bureaucrat instead of getting a straight answer from the top. THE MAN doesn't have time for me. He INVENTED time! But he can't break his schedule to talk to me? God is TOO BUSY? Sounds like a time-management issue to me."

I wouldn't believe in a God like that either! :-)

But I have to tell you that I agree with you that one's beliefs about religion and the afterlife are beyond debate. Who really has all the answers, and if they did, would they answer MY questions, right?

But it does sound like you are still searching for answers. There are many other spiritual paths than those of Farwells & Sharptons.

Posted by: Selky on June 23, 2003 02:30 PM

I'd make a comment about all this, but my thoughts on religion are mine, and nobody else's business.

Posted by: Kim du Toit on June 23, 2003 05:13 PM

"Life's a job you're fired from, unless of course you quit"

Loudon Wainwright III

Posted by: Softly on June 23, 2003 07:46 PM

I can't claim to be an Atheist (more a Deist), but I've never yet found a professional religioso I could take for long. The origin of politics lies with the Shaman...

Posted by: John Anderson on June 23, 2003 08:32 PM

Oh goody, politics and religion...

I agree that one's views on religion are deeply personal and matters of conscience. Some believers do not understand that agnosticism or atheism are as much matters of conscience to their adherents as their particular religious faiths are to them.

The First Amendment forbids establishment of "religion," not a church, as some would have us believe, though an established church was certainly included in the ban. I would assert that this was once understood by the officers of the federal government is demonstrated by the fact that the phrase "in God we trust" did not appear on our money until the Civil War.

Incidentally, that phrase is not the motto of the United States, as many now believe. That device would be E PLURIBUS UNUM, which is ambivalent as to whether it refers to pluribus individuals or pluribus states.

Under federalism as understood in the antebellum period, the States could establish churches and require religious tests for office. It would take the Fourteenth amendment to include the state governments in the limitations to the Federal Government. Longstanding religious custom coupled with a growing secularization of temperament has kept alive the controversy of whether one may mandate religious practice with public time and treasure by means of democratic legislation.

In a truly live and let live spirit such as I believe the Constitution intends to promote, believers and non-believers would live in peace, respecting one another's choices, and not beseeching the government to promote one's views at the expense of the other's rights. This purpose is best served by understanding the the First Amendment as protecting the freedom of religious opinion, not the freedom of religions alone.

Posted by: Brett on June 24, 2003 08:36 AM
Post a comment