Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
What is your belief in God- does he exist?
Yes- a omnipotent Human 14%
Yes- another entity than Human 9%
Yes- everything has a bit of God in it 23%
No 47%
Undecided 4%

Votes: 21

 My rant on religon

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jun 04, 2002
Now don't get me wrong. I am a bar-mitzvahed reform Jew. But religon right now doesn't make sense. I don't believe there is a single entity who could have such power over us.
In fact, if he was indeed sentient, he probably would have eraticaded us by now. It may seem morose, but we are the plague of this world. We suck the life out of it and spread pestilence everywhere. So, in my mind, God is a way of control. Theology was created so Kings could gain power and "unite" (aka control) the people. Who is Jesus Christ? He is a man with an idea who attained superstardom. Who is Muhammud? He is a man who spread his belief in hopes of uniting a people into harmony. I have heard a quote before... "If there truly is no God, man would still be forced to create one in order to surive." So who is God? A force of uniting. Now, who do I think is God? Random chance. Earth was created by the random chance of particles clumping together into a motley Gaea. Yes, but who created these particles? Again, random chance, they might have come from an alternate dimension or might have spontaneously came into material life. Conclusion: God is a mixed bag- people unite under a belief in God, yet seem to crusade for this belief. What had nature intended? Nature, I belive simply wanted diversity.


Fact: (none / 0) (#1)
by majubma on Tue Jun 4th, 2002 at 11:48:26 PM PST
The Gaia hypothesis, like so many things in our society, is the result of the unfortunate combination of an inadequate understanding of mathematics, a "mommy-didn't-love-me-enough" insecurity complex, and the consumption of too many hallucinogenic drugs.

Ascribing anthropomorphic intentionality to "nature" is no different from theism.

-- All information wants to be free, especially information about what you do in the privacy of your own home.

Voltaire. (none / 0) (#2)
by Illiterate Bum on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 02:56:05 AM PST
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
-From Epītre ą l'Auteur du Livre des Trois Imposteurs, cxi., Francis M. Voltaire

Please don't misquote Voltaire again, or I shall be forced to harm you.

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

Obviously your name belies you [n/t] (none / 0) (#3)
by Fon2d2 on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 06:17:21 AM PST

another one (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 07:38:56 AM PST
"If God created us in his own image, we have more than reciprocated."

Opposite month (none / 0) (#4)
by First Incision on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 07:16:43 AM PST
Awhile back we had opposite month, and I was thought about writing something claiming God didn't exist. If I had written it, it would have sounded a lot like this. But my arguments didn't seem very convincing, so I didn't.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

*yawn* (none / 0) (#6)
by derek3000 on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 08:17:45 AM PST
Did someone say something? No? I'm going back to sleep then...

"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Please post this whining rubbish somewhere else. (none / 0) (#7)
by dmg on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:46:56 AM PST
I don't believe there is a single entity who could have such power over us.

Who cares what you think ? Highly educated theologians have argued about this for millenia, what makes you think you are qualified to even debate the subject ?

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Qualifications (none / 0) (#10)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:07:22 PM PST
He has just as much right and qualification as you, me and those hundreds of thousands of dead theologians. Not because of his studies or lack thereof, not because of his genius or sensitivity or their opposite. He has the right because he is just as human and has opened himself up to questions that expand beyond his boundaries of self.

He's said his piece, and if you don't find it controversial enough, why dignify it with a response?

A troll's true colors.

pish (none / 0) (#12)
by nathan on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 02:09:49 PM PST
The diarist in question is certainly entitled to rant about religion. He's not entitled to say anything worth serious consideration unless he does more than rant. Not many people spontaneously create works of genius without even the slightest bit of study.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

posh (none / 0) (#14)
by SpaceGhoti on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 09:09:17 PM PST
The diarist has just as much right to speak on any number of topics as you do. Study by itself is meaningless; it's what you learn and apply from your studies and experiences that count. There are some uneducated people worth listening to over the bullshit you find elsewhere. Education does not equal intelligence or wisdom.

A troll's true colors.

Gosh. (none / 0) (#15)
by gzt on Sat Jun 8th, 2002 at 02:31:03 PM PST
He has the right to speak about them, but he can't expect to matter or attract our attention.

You're quite right; study alone is not enough. In every generation, there are thousands of men with doctorates, but rarely even one like Thomas Aquinas.

Call me elitist, if you will. I'll agree heartily.

PS Lesser mortals are capable of insights, but why wade through the chaff?

Golly. (none / 0) (#16)
by SpaceGhoti on Sat Jun 8th, 2002 at 06:34:10 PM PST
Certainly, nobody has the right to expect anyone else will take them seriously. They have to prove (or disprove, as is common hereabouts) their worth. As this is a public forum the diarist can post to his heart's content. If the Editors (Infinite in Their Wisdom) don't like it, they can remove priviliges from anyone they choose. The diarist does not have the right to create a panic without evidence to back up his statements, but the definition of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is up to the courts.

I don't think has yet attracted the attention of a court justice to its ranks, so I feel it safe to say any such accusations are purely subjective.

A troll's true colors.

hey, fuck off (none / 0) (#17)
by nathan on Tue Jun 11th, 2002 at 07:08:23 AM PST
The diarist hasn't been repressed; he's been mocked. His privileges, let alone his rights, haven't been violated. What does that do to your argument?

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Fuck yourself. (none / 0) (#18)
by SpaceGhoti on Tue Jun 11th, 2002 at 08:21:21 PM PST
I never berated anyone for mocking the diarist, I merely answered dmg's self-righteous attack on the diarist's right to discuss the topic under discussion. I have read suggestions in other diaries that only a selection of favored subscribers be allowed to post, and the way dmg coached his words suggested that he might favor such restrictions. That is, of course, up to the Editors, but it represents a mindset worthy of Joseph Stalin.

Or, as George Orwell once put it, "all are equal, but some are more equal than others."

A troll's true colors.

listen, you prize turkey (none / 0) (#19)
by nathan on Wed Jun 26th, 2002 at 11:13:07 PM PST
Dmg didn't attack the diarist's rights. He attacked the diarist's credibility and mocked his total presumptuousness.

If I post that you are full of shit - as I am doing at this very moment - it's no attack on your rights, unless there exists a right not to be told that one's full of shit. Which claim appears to be your only possible salvation at this point. In any case, the diarist has very few rights on this site, as it is oligarchically organized and he's not in the ruling cadre.

Why should anyone take some random idiot's warmed-over theological onanism seriously? If his ideas are so great, let him make something of them! In my opinion, they're unbelievably inane! Get over it!

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You hurt my feelings. (none / 0) (#20)
by SpaceGhoti on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 05:21:44 AM PST
dmg opened his statements with a suggestion that the diarist take his opinions elsewhere, using strong language to back his statements. His attack was directed at the author in general, encompassing the diarist's qualifications, ability and right to post an opinion. I made no attempt to defend the diarist's arguments, only the diarist's right to present them in an open forum.

Whether or not you enjoy the taste of dmg's excrement is of no concern to me, nor is your fascination with the semantics of the argument.

A troll's true colors.

some things to consider (none / 0) (#8)
by nathan on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 10:57:07 AM PST

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Uhm yes. (none / 0) (#9)
by tkatchev on Wed Jun 5th, 2002 at 11:18:02 AM PST
Like, "100 and 1 ways to believe in 'God' without really commiting yourself".

What a boring way to lead your life...

Peace and much love...

Oh come on give the "God" thing a rest (none / 0) (#11)
by PotatoError on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 12:53:11 PM PST
Let talk about Linux and stuff instead. God is boring.

Well... (none / 0) (#13)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 02:24:04 PM PST
...God can be boring only if He is. If He isn't, then he can't be boring nor non-boring.

However, debates about God are, and so they can be boring without question.

On another thought... Does God exist even if we don't believe in Him?


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to