The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Godidiot of the Week: The Raving Agnostic, and You

April 2, 2003 | 52 Comments

Allah is a syphilitic whoremonger who fucks goats in an outhouse.

The Virgin Mary gives blowjobs to Jesus for ten cents a pop.

Ganesh rapes the corpses of stillborn babies.

Yes, I’m back.

I didn’t offend anyone just now, did I?

If you were offended, you’re either 1) stupid, or 2) as stupid as this week’s Godidiot, The Raving Agnostic, in which case you’ve lost the right to be offended.

If you were offended, you need to be educated about a few things, stupid, so sit down, shut up, and let me explain why.

The Raving Agnostic believes that it’s plausible that The Beast stalks a public highway because it’s named “U.S. 666.” He thinks it’s equally plausible that The Beast doesn’t stalk that highway. He believes it’s plausible that the attack on the World Trade Center was authorized by a god, and that it’s equally plausible that the attack wasn’t authorized by a god. He believes it’s plausible that a god wants homosexuals to be imprisoned or executed, and that it’s equally plausible that a god doesn’t want homosexuals to be imprisoned or executed. He believes that it’s plausible that the Holocaust was a god’s punishment for Jewish intermarriage, and that it’s equally plausible that the Holocaust wasn’t a god’s punishment for Jewish intermarriage. He declares that people shouldn’t assert that they are certain, one way or the other, about these matters, but also claims that he isn’t certain whether people shouldn’t assert that they’re certain.

In other words, half of The Raving Agnostic’s opinions are stupid, the other half of his beliefs contradict the first half, and he takes no position about which half is more plausible. The Raving Agnostic is stupid — very, very stupid.

You are stupid if you believe in Allah, the Virgin Mary, Jesus, Ganesh or the Beast that stalks U.S. 666. You are stupid if you believe that their existence is as plausible as their non-existence. You are stupid if you believe in the Wizard of Oz. And you have no right to be offended by the comparison to the Wizard of Oz, because what is really offensive is the making of any distinction between those beings. They are all imaginary. You are also stupid if you are offended when I say that Allah and Mary and Jesus and Ganesh fuck goats and dead babies and give blowjobs, because imaginary beings don’t have sex lives for you to be concerned about.

What you should be concerned about is the sex lives of your fellow human beings, some of whom may be imprisoned because stupid people like you think it’s possible that the imaginary Allah and Mary and Jesus and Ganesh care about their sexual orientation. You should care that the Supreme Court may institutionalize that stupidity very soon. You should care that the Governors of three states are going to institutionalize the stupidity of people like you who think it’s possible that The Beast stalks U.S. 666 by changing the highway’s name. You should be embarrassed that the Federal Highway Administration finds it necessary to post a lengthy explanation on its website that the numbering was coincidental rather than part of some Satanic conspiracy.

If you don’t care, then I will make up a god that hates your sexual orientation and put you in prison. If you think that renaming a highway is a trivial matter, then I will put big billboards up on every highway that say “Allah is a syphilitic whoremonger who fucks goats in an outhouse” and “the Virgin Mary gives blowjobs to Jesus for ten cents a pop” and “Ganesh rapes the corpses of stillborn babies.” And I will say that I have a right to because I believe in yet another god who commands that we “have no other gods before us,” and who hates Allah and Mary and Jesus and Ganesh. You will not even have the right to be offended, because you, like The Raving Agnostic, believe that everything is possible and that nothing is real.

Comments

52 Responses to “Godidiot of the Week: The Raving Agnostic, and You”

  1. Rumblefish
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:02 pm

    HAHAHAHA. that’s the type of antagonistic shit i like to see. You should change your name to the Crass atheist. I really liked the part about creating a “god that hates your sexuality”. I”m thinking we should all have are own made up god.

  2. corsair
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:16 pm

    Whew… Got all barrels blazing today, didn’t we?

  3. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:25 pm

    Nice switcheroo. Pretty mean, too – not that I’m against it; just noting.

    I like to put it to agnosticism in a slightly shorter way: An agnostic claims to neither assert nor deny the existence of a god for wiping their ass. However, they make a choice every time they pull those squares of toilet paper off the roll.

  4. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:25 pm

    Nice switcheroo. Pretty mean, too – not that I’m against it; just noting.

    I like to put it to agnosticism in a slightly shorter way: An agnostic claims to neither assert nor deny the existence of a god for wiping their ass. However, they make a choice every time they pull those squares of toilet paper off the roll.

  5. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:25 pm

    Nice switcheroo. Pretty mean, too – not that I’m against it; just noting.

    I like to put it to agnosticism in a slightly shorter way: An agnostic claims to neither assert nor deny the existence of a god for wiping their ass. However, they make a choice every time they pull those squares of toilet paper off the roll.

  6. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:25 pm

    Nice switcheroo. Pretty mean, too – not that I’m against it; just noting.

    I like to put it to agnosticism in a slightly shorter way: An agnostic claims to neither assert nor deny the existence of a god for wiping their ass. However, they make a choice every time they pull those squares of toilet paper off the roll.

  7. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:25 pm

    Nice switcheroo. Pretty mean, too – not that I’m against it; just noting.

    I like to put it to agnosticism in a slightly shorter way: An agnostic claims to neither assert nor deny the existence of a god for wiping their ass. However, they make a choice every time they pull those squares of toilet paper off the roll.

  8. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:25 pm

    Nice switcheroo. Pretty mean, too – not that I’m against it; just noting.

    I like to put it to agnosticism in a slightly shorter way: An agnostic claims to neither assert nor deny the existence of a god for wiping their ass. However, they make a choice every time they pull those squares of toilet paper off the roll.

  9. Eva
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:30 pm

    welcome baaaaack!!!

    you did not say “Fuck Agnostics!”….

  10. Yahmdallah
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:32 pm

    At least have the decency to wander around in soiled underwear, reeking of beer, and holding an illegally modified shotgun when you spout shit like that. ;)

    So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh? Interesting, yet deeply flawed, viewpoint.

    Oh well.

  11. the evil queen
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 2:41 pm

    aahhh, my beloved mr. wild thing has returned at long last…

    thank. fucking. GOD!

    xoxo, jared

  12. Zach
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:06 pm

    Wow. Amazed. That’s what I am. I love you. Wait…you aren’t making a god that hates people who love people that are the same sex as the person who is sending out the love, are you?

    LOL! You rule!

  13. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:54 pm

    “So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh?”

    And are you claiming that ignorance of the mechanism behind some physical abberation is a philosophical doctrine? If so, I’ll match your flawed viewpoint, and raise you an inductive fallacy.

  14. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:54 pm

    “So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh?”

    And are you claiming that ignorance of the mechanism behind some physical abberation is a philosophical doctrine? If so, I’ll match your flawed viewpoint, and raise you an inductive fallacy.

  15. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:54 pm

    “So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh?”

    And are you claiming that ignorance of the mechanism behind some physical abberation is a philosophical doctrine? If so, I’ll match your flawed viewpoint, and raise you an inductive fallacy.

  16. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:54 pm

    “So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh?”

    And are you claiming that ignorance of the mechanism behind some physical abberation is a philosophical doctrine? If so, I’ll match your flawed viewpoint, and raise you an inductive fallacy.

  17. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:54 pm

    “So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh?”

    And are you claiming that ignorance of the mechanism behind some physical abberation is a philosophical doctrine? If so, I’ll match your flawed viewpoint, and raise you an inductive fallacy.

  18. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:54 pm

    “So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh?”

    And are you claiming that ignorance of the mechanism behind some physical abberation is a philosophical doctrine? If so, I’ll match your flawed viewpoint, and raise you an inductive fallacy.

  19. Toby
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 3:56 pm

    No, Yahmdallah, your comparison is flawed. When a scientist doesn’t know, he says so and probably tries to research it.

    What he doesn’t do, unlike religious people, is form ad hoc hypotheses of what “God” does and doesn’t do, what he wants and doesn’t without any basis or conclusive evidence to back it up.

    Really, I want to know why you don’t believe in Santa Claus, the Yeti, Loch Ness monster, the tooth fairy, demons and witches, spirit gods, etc. None of these have been shown NOT to exist, so you don’t know, do you? Do you believe in a God merely because others do?

    Have you ever tried praying to Joe Pesci?

  20. DesertJo
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 4:05 pm

    wow. nice return to form. i could taste that bile all the way over here.

    tastes like victory.

  21. Toby
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 4:07 pm

    Sorry the Joe Pesci link was wrong. This is the correct link.

  22. Kel
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 4:22 pm

    Amen, brotha!

  23. David Gillies
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 4:23 pm

    Beautiful. I’m sick and tired of the lazy agnostic equation of the logical consistency of a statement and its negation with epistemological consistency.

  24. Rumblefish
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 4:26 pm

    guh?

  25. Jason Malloy
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 5:12 pm

    So, when a scientist doesn’t know which gene is causing a genetic flaw, s/he’s an ass-wiping agnostic, eh? Interesting, yet deeply flawed, viewpoint.

    Yes Yahmdallah, and when he acknowledges gravity, he is then a theologian. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

  26. keegan
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 5:24 pm

    Okay, the RavingAtheist is back–thank Mermaids!

    Though I can’t believe I fell for it. I should have known how sadistic and evil he is–immoral fuck. Hehe. :-) Welcome back.

  27. Yahmdallah
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 5:42 pm

    Heh. “Inductive fallacy.” So you use logic only when it bolsters your case but abondon it when it doesn’t? Pick a lane, dude.

    Well, I don’t want to harsh anyone’s hate-fest mellow much longer, and besides the Santa Claus and fairy thing has been evoked, which in these debates is equivalent to bringing up hitler on a newsgroup.

    Ya’ll have fun now, y’hear?

  28. Jason Malloy
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 7:55 pm

    which in these debates

    Wake up, Yahmdallah, there never was any debate. That was the point of today’s rave- your position isn’t debatable, probable, or in the least bit sane or coherent. It doesn’t deserve recognition or “a hearing”, it is as manifestly absurd and false as any random fiction could be, and it needs to be approached as such at all times. Any person who holds truth as any sort of fundamental virtue won’t hesitate to condemn these superstitions for what they are- a mockery of reason, and an outrageous and shameful insult to the intellect of man.

  29. Rumblefish
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 10:29 pm

    Hey Yahmdallah, why didn’t you ansewer the questions i asked you in the respecting numbers comments area ????????

  30. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 10:34 pm

    Abandon logic? Would that make me an ad hoc dad? (Don’t bother thinking about it.)

    Yahm, when you return Yahm (as I’m sure you will), please continue the cute accusations of careening logic. Or weaving. Or whatever steers your metaphor. As I’ll enjoy reminding you, you’re the one who claims logic isn’t good enough for tackling the “large question.”

    Rumblefish, that would require he stop deriding the rules of the game and start tossing the ball around.

  31. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 10:34 pm

    Abandon logic? Would that make me an ad hoc dad? (Don’t bother thinking about it.)

    Yahm, when you return Yahm (as I’m sure you will), please continue the cute accusations of careening logic. Or weaving. Or whatever steers your metaphor. As I’ll enjoy reminding you, you’re the one who claims logic isn’t good enough for tackling the “large question.”

    Rumblefish, that would require he stop deriding the rules of the game and start tossing the ball around.

  32. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 10:34 pm

    Abandon logic? Would that make me an ad hoc dad? (Don’t bother thinking about it.)

    Yahm, when you return Yahm (as I’m sure you will), please continue the cute accusations of careening logic. Or weaving. Or whatever steers your metaphor. As I’ll enjoy reminding you, you’re the one who claims logic isn’t good enough for tackling the “large question.”

    Rumblefish, that would require he stop deriding the rules of the game and start tossing the ball around.

  33. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 10:34 pm

    Abandon logic? Would that make me an ad hoc dad? (Don’t bother thinking about it.)

    Yahm, when you return Yahm (as I’m sure you will), please continue the cute accusations of careening logic. Or weaving. Or whatever steers your metaphor. As I’ll enjoy reminding you, you’re the one who claims logic isn’t good enough for tackling the “large question.”

    Rumblefish, that would require he stop deriding the rules of the game and start tossing the ball around.

  34. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 10:34 pm

    Abandon logic? Would that make me an ad hoc dad? (Don’t bother thinking about it.)

    Yahm, when you return Yahm (as I’m sure you will), please continue the cute accusations of careening logic. Or weaving. Or whatever steers your metaphor. As I’ll enjoy reminding you, you’re the one who claims logic isn’t good enough for tackling the “large question.”

    Rumblefish, that would require he stop deriding the rules of the game and start tossing the ball around.

  35. Kafkaesqu
    April 2nd, 2003 @ 10:34 pm

    Abandon logic? Would that make me an ad hoc dad? (Don’t bother thinking about it.)

    Yahm, when you return Yahm (as I’m sure you will), please continue the cute accusations of careening logic. Or weaving. Or whatever steers your metaphor. As I’ll enjoy reminding you, you’re the one who claims logic isn’t good enough for tackling the “large question.”

    Rumblefish, that would require he stop deriding the rules of the game and start tossing the ball around.

  36. Gopangaea
    April 3rd, 2003 @ 3:24 am

    Oh, Happy day for all you AGNOSTICS!!!
    “I think he doth protest too much.”

    All you fredaks out there, rumblefish keegan, eva, wetting in your pants because your f

  37. Rumblefish
    April 3rd, 2003 @ 12:41 pm

    what the fuck are you talking about you wacky bitch.

  38. Eva
    April 3rd, 2003 @ 12:58 pm

    wacky bitch!
    hahahahaha…..good one, RF….
    i could not understand her either….

  39. Josh
    April 3rd, 2003 @ 7:11 pm

    An agnostic is someone who hasn’t yet decided whether the athiest or the Christian should have the burden of proof. In other words, if you think it’s the Christian’s job to prove the existence of God, and the Christian hasn’t done that to your satisfaction, then by default you would have to believe there is no God. If you believe it’s the athiest’s job to disprove the existence of God, and he hasn’t done that to your satisfaction, then by default you have to believe God exists.

    Or, you can acknowledge that there are things in the universe that remain unexplained by either science or religion, and call yourself an agnostic.

  40. the evil queen
    April 3rd, 2003 @ 9:41 pm

    FYI, it’s “masturbate”. “mastUrbating on a website.” lets get it together people!

    xoxo, jared

  41. Rumblefish
    April 3rd, 2003 @ 10:13 pm

    I want to know how you choke yer chicken to type on a screen? That sounds like something a repressed christian could do. Not I! I go to other sites for that purpose.

  42. Rob
    April 7th, 2003 @ 11:04 am

    Since we’re defining agnosticism…
    this page points out that there are two kinds of agnostic.

    Empirical agnostics argue that we haven’t yet proved or disproved whether God exists.

    Strict agnostics say that whether or not God exists is unprovable either way.

    I think whether either point of view holds depends on the god in question. Certain gods are unprovable by definition. This makes agnostic a bit of a weak term, imo.

    An atheist, meanwhile, simply doesn’t believe in God. Atheism and agnosticism are therefore not mutually exclusive.

  43. Keith
    July 25th, 2003 @ 3:32 am

    It is obvious that your great hatred of Religion is because you think that it inhibits your sexuality. I assume that you are a homosexual or a pederast and imagine that were it not for Christianity you could act out your fantasies, but I suggest you consult the News and the Web and you will see that Christianity is really a cult that caters for your perverse sexuality, so why not join your local church and get into the fun? Keith

  44. Kafkaesqu
    July 25th, 2003 @ 9:37 am

    Keith: A slap down of RA, homosexuals and Christianity, and all in one sentence, to boot. If only you worked in transcendentalists and lawyers, your comment would have been a tour de force. Nevertheless, Kudos!

  45. Kafkaesqu
    July 25th, 2003 @ 9:37 am

    Keith: A slap down of RA, homosexuals and Christianity, and all in one sentence, to boot. If only you worked in transcendentalists and lawyers, your comment would have been a tour de force. Nevertheless, Kudos!

  46. Kafkaesqu
    July 25th, 2003 @ 9:37 am

    Keith: A slap down of RA, homosexuals and Christianity, and all in one sentence, to boot. If only you worked in transcendentalists and lawyers, your comment would have been a tour de force. Nevertheless, Kudos!

  47. Kafkaesqu
    July 25th, 2003 @ 9:37 am

    Keith: A slap down of RA, homosexuals and Christianity, and all in one sentence, to boot. If only you worked in transcendentalists and lawyers, your comment would have been a tour de force. Nevertheless, Kudos!

  48. Kafkaesqu
    July 25th, 2003 @ 9:37 am

    Keith: A slap down of RA, homosexuals and Christianity, and all in one sentence, to boot. If only you worked in transcendentalists and lawyers, your comment would have been a tour de force. Nevertheless, Kudos!

  49. Kafkaesqu
    July 25th, 2003 @ 9:37 am

    Keith: A slap down of RA, homosexuals and Christianity, and all in one sentence, to boot. If only you worked in transcendentalists and lawyers, your comment would have been a tour de force. Nevertheless, Kudos!

  50. paul willis
    July 31st, 2003 @ 7:21 pm

    Ok, help me out here. I’m making doing a sociology project in school. My parents let me use their business line to track the comments. So the question is should the accusor be allowed anonymity? Should the accused (Kobe Bryant) be allowed anonymity? The accused is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. Let me know what you think and why. Thanks in advance for your help on my project. 800-799-4935. My goal is 200 responses, so please pass this around. Just ignore the business message (I don’t need your name, just your comments). Thanks for your help!

  51. joe
    September 24th, 2003 @ 12:19 am

    Hi. I’m an agnostic. When I was reviewing the application form before I signed up, I didn’t notice anything about being required to believe that the probability of god existing and god not existing had to be equal. The probability of God existing is, of course, indeterminate and from a classical understanding of the world that probability is rather near zero. But until science arrives at an explanation of the universe’s existence, you can go on peddling your vitriol but it won’t make you any more correct, nor will it make christians grow a brain. Atheists are fools who don’t grasp the limits of their understanding.

    Signed,
    One agnostic who doesn’t give a fuck about discussing the possibility of the existence of God because it’s pointless.

  52. Christina
    February 20th, 2004 @ 1:34 pm

    You guys scare me… but that’s okay God loves you anyway. He doesn’t think you’re stupid, or misinformed, or pathetic, he loves you! I love you! Jesus loves you! Alla loves you. Muhammad loves you! Buddha loves you! All the holy spirits and saints love you and are watching out for you. God Bless all you brothers and sisters of mine. May you someday find the truth and not condemn those who are looking for it. May you be open minded and wise… AMEN!
    -Your sister in Christ

  • 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