Jump to content

Wilco and atheism

i'm only sleeping

By i'm only sleeping,
in Just A Fan

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

TheMaker

TheMaker

Posted
Posted
Can someone not believe in god and still be ok if other people do?

 

I think hate and murder would happen regardless of religion's existence. I also think all of the good things that cone from religion would happen even without religion.

 

Sure. It's your prerogative, really. If you are genuinely unbothered by the ostensible fact that ninety-something percent of the planet believes in something that is insane on its face, and you can live your life unresentful of the constant inculcation that fuels religion, by all means... do so. Hell, I wish I could! I can't, though, so I will continue to combat religious thought in every small way that I can

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

austrya

austrya

Posted
Posted
Sure. It's your prerogative, really. If you are genuinely unbothered by the ostensible fact that ninety-something percent of the planet believes in something that is insane on its face, and you can live your life unresentful of the constant inculcation that fuels religion, by all means... do so. Hell, I wish I could! I can't, though, so I will continue to combat religious thought in every small way that I can

 

And I continue to pray for you in every small way that I can ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
JUDE

JUDE

Posted
Posted
To call the USSR an "atheist state" is fucking retarded (cough, sorry, let's say disingenuous instead, but no, seriously, it's fucking retarded) for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it was without religion for a very practical political reason. Dictators abolish religion so that a cult of personality can thrive in its place, not because they agree principally with atheism. (I'm pretty sure Stalin himself wasn't even an atheist!) They get rid of it because it's something that people regard as empowering, similar in that respect to a free press, freedom of assembly, and anything else that has the potential to discredit or damage a dictator's politics and/or steal his thunda. The problem with all "regimes" lies not in atheism or Chistianity, but rather with forced ideology itself. Most atheists would be appalled by the idea of removing churches from America's heartland overnight, and that's because most atheists are pragmatic above all else.

 

Actually it's your reading comprehension that is "fucking retarded". Within the context of Mr. Nickerson post and calling out the evils done by religions as a justification for "evangelical atheism" my painting in a broad stroke and brining up some of the evils done by the former Soviet Union based in part on your beloved Atheist principals is quite valid. To say evils done by Muslims/Christians/Scientologists/Jews is based solely on a belief in a higher power is no different than calling the USSR Atheist State acting upon those principals.

 

Of course I may expect too much from you, I'm sure rallying against the world takes a lot of time and energy thus not allowing you to actually take the time to let other peoples words actually set in and take meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbob1313

bobbob1313

Posted
Posted
Sure. It's your prerogative, really. If you are genuinely unbothered by the ostensible fact that ninety-something percent of the planet believes in something that is insane on its face, and you can live your life unresentful of the constant inculcation that fuels religion, by all means... do so. Hell, I wish I could! I can't, though, so I will continue to combat religious thought in every small way that I can

 

Do you have a problem with homophobia?

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMaker

TheMaker

Posted
Posted

That was angry and stupid.

 

beloved Atheist principals

 

What the fuck is this, first of all, before we attempt to proceed? We have been OVER this and OVER this and OVER this. Atheism is not a doctrine. How the fuck can a word that connotes nothing more than an absence of vague metaphysical belief a) possibly be as threatening as a codified system of beliefs and rituals that makes explicit demands of its followers, and B) become a central plank of any regime? Think about it. You can't abuse "atheism." You can, however, abuse religion by forcibly removing it from the picture, but if people weren't so fucking stupid as to put actual stock in it, then it wouldn't pose a threat to dipshits whose interest is strictly limited to gaining power, would it?

 

Do you have a problem with homophobia?

 

Of course I do. What are you nipping at now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
M. (hristine

M. (hristine

Posted
Posted
What the fuck is this, first of all, before we attempt to proceed? We have been OVER this and OVER this and OVER this. Atheism is not a doctrine.

You're awfully fucking dogmatic for atheism not to be your doctrine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bobbob1313

bobbob1313

Posted
Posted
Yeah, yeah, that's just fucking great. I SAID JESUS CHRIST SO I MUST BE RELIGIOUS HA HA. If anything, that stands as an illustration of just how insidious this garbage truly is.

 

Are you high right now?

 

Ok, I think I can make my point.

 

Homophobia displays, to me, the same militant disregard and disdain for a 'crazy idea' as what the maker has shown.

 

He's going to be very mad about that, and it might be a slight stretch but it makes sense to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Synthesizer Patel

Synthesizer Patel

Posted
Posted
:yes

 

i kind of almost agree with what satan has to say in that, although i do think that he is the actual satan rather than apparently his nephew, and so he is making the child believe in nothing so has to lead him from the heavenly path. or maybe not? hmmm. i don't really know. i do know he wrote a number of versions of the ending - so what is your take?

 

the whole piss-take of "the moral sense" issue throughout the story is certainly something i agree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good Old Neon

Good Old Neon

Posted
Posted
It is not the faith. It is the action of the person that you have issue with. It is not what he believes; it's what he wants to do or wants you to do. Don't you understand that there's a difference, regardless of what you believe?

 

Neither faith nor belief detracts from what man has accomplished -- quite the opposite, if provides him peace and comfort in order to focus on his greater work, more power to him.

 

You have atheists on this thread basically saying the same thing. A person of faith and an athiest arrive at the same decision. Imagine that!!

 

I disagree entirely

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...