NavigationBanners![]()
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 516 guests online.
Online users:
|
Preview commentReplyFive Questions (With Insufficient Answers) And A Single Shining MaybeSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 2009-10-26 08:01.
by George Potter Q: What is the nature of God? A: When the universe came to be, it was without form and void. That means it had no shape and consisted entirely of nothing. This was, obviously, an untenable situation. The shape lacking, imaginary particles that made up the universe were ashamed to be part of such a loser universe. They had to do something. Lacking Craigslist, they settled on screaming piteously into the uncaring nothingness like whiny little bitches. Over the non-ages this created an atmosphere of existential annoyance. From this atmosphere a Being arose. This Being was God. God was, by nature, profoundly pissed off. It had been created by the sheer aggravation of countless shrieking, unsubstantial bits of loser. What else could It be? It lit into the universe like a buzzsaw (though it may be more logical to say a buzzsaw functions like a just formed God). It pounded those noisy fucks into a shape, cursed them into temporal existence, and swore up and down that it would spend the rest of Eternity making them pay, pay, pay, pay. And it came to be. And God said it was good. Q: What is the nature of Man? A: The first Man was created when God got bored with abusing imaginary particles. It was all well and good, true, but It wanted something to hit that would have a bit more reaction. Would provide a little more tangible amusement. Would, at least, scream in a more interesting way. So It invented some shit called dirt and formed a Man out of it. Being curious, it made another version, slightly different. As a joke, it kept both. It placed the Man and Woman into a Paradise, made them a bunch of promises, gave them some rather arbitrary and stupid rules. Then It waited. You could almost see It bounce in impatient glee. Sure enough, the brand-new foolish creatures broke the arbitrary and stupid rule and God did what God does. It spent the rest of eternity making those pitiful creatures pay, pay, pay, pay. And this, too, was good. Q: Does Heaven exist? A: What are you, retarded? Q: Does Hell exist? A: Look around, dumbass. Q: What is the Meaning Of Life? A: Don't you get it yet, moron? There is no meaning to any of this nonsense, other than what God decides to impose on it. The universe is shrieking nothingness. Your God is an angry psychopath who can't get over being created in a less than ideal way. Your life is an accidental confluence of ridiculous improbabilities focused on a single point in chaotic, traveling time-space. Your purpose is to suffer. Your only goal is to return to oblivion once God has tired of toying with you. You can't even off yourself to hurry the process along, since that will just piss God off even more. It doesn't like It's creations trying to escape. It'll get bored with you when It feels like it, and not a moment sooner. Hmm. There is... well... I probably shouldn't tell you this, since it will no doubt just give you pointless, tragic hope, but... There are some scholars, certain thinkers, who posit, based on a rigorous study of the ephemeral rules they find themselves mired in, that God might eventually get over It's divine Issues. I mean, it's possible. Almost anything's possible in such a pointless universe. Think about it. God's own whining might wake up an even bigger God who will put It's boot up God's ass and tell It to shut the fuck up and leave those stupid dirtthings alone, for itssake. That, listened to properly, those screaming particles are kind of nice. Make a sort of music. Maybe. And that's the saddest thing of all, really. That possibility of hope. That tiny, statistical if of compassion. That in all this impossibility of heaven and certainty of hell there might just be the opportunity for change. Wouldn't that be good? ( categories: Gloryroad )
|
BlogrollMike Vanderboegh
QuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith "Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." -- Mike Vanderboegh Also from The Atlanta Declaration: ... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party. -- L. Neil Smith This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion. -- Vin Suprynowicz The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair |
Recent comments
4 hours 41 min ago
5 hours 20 min ago
15 hours 46 min ago
5 days 5 hours ago
1 week 3 days ago
1 week 3 days ago
1 week 6 days ago
2 weeks 2 days ago
3 weeks 19 hours ago
3 weeks 3 days ago