Talk:Atheism (religion)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I just added a section on atheist monasteries since the page needed something more

edit Rewrite

Rewrote pretty much the whole thing. AdrianMarcato 05:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to cut back [and by cut back, I mean remove entirely] on the naked chicks. Generally, if your relying on shock factor, vulgarity, profanity, boobs to make it an article funny, it isn't funny.--Mnbvcxz 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

edit WHAT THE FUCK!!??!!


Look Uncyclopedia, now I know that you are here to be funny and everything, but seriously there should be some limits to what you guys use as a source of ridicule. Is nothing sacred to you evil fucks? As a devoute Atheist, I find this article deeply offensive, and am insulted by its presence on this wiki. Uncyclopedia needs to realise that some humour is acceptable, whereas some simply is not. Where do you sick fuckers get off making fun of what other people's believe anyway? Do you bastards actually like the fact that Atheists reading this article will be made to vomit and feel their insides ripping apart? Do you actually want to hurt people and make them feel bad? I DEMAND THAT THIS ARTICLE BE RE-WRITTEN. It is nothing more than a string of evil, degrading and dam right insulting attacks on the faith of Atheism and it makes me feel sick to my pants. Uncyclopedia, you should be ashamed. This is an outrage. -- A disgusted user 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find MrN9000 that we live in a multicultural society, with the Jews, Muslims, Blacks and whites saying and doing whatever the hell they like. Plus Atheism is shit pop culture religion for people too opinionated to admit they're Agnostics.--Sycamore (Talk) 14:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm undecided on that issue. Actually, I classify myself as "an optimistic atheist". :P This article ROCKS. MrN Icons-flag-gb HalIcon.png WhoreMrn.png Fork you! 14:49, Mar 9

An athiest against free speech? Kunal-Sharma 21:32, February 24, 2011 (UTC) all this bull shit means nothing and i take it back because im a fag The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.106.177 (talk • contribs)

This must be taken down! The Atheists' holy book saith in the book of Steve Chapter 8 verse 32-33, "And the void spake and decreed no picking on those who are my people! You shall smote their asses like the high and mighty atheist you are!" As you can see the holy Void of nothing hath spoken! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sweettart9467 (talk • contribs)


edit Article appears to have a Christian bias...

This article, like the one about God, appears to have a distinct Christian bias. It's not what it says, but how it says it. "Holy Mother". "God". "George W. Bush". "Prophets". The "prophets" may indicate a "revealed religion" or "divine revelations". Those characteristics are distinctly Western. There are nontheistic religions in the world. They are nontheistic, because they don't require belief in a god; however, many of their followers do have some concept of a God-like character or some belief in the afterlife or otherworldly things. There are also "Nontheist Quaker" or "Nontheist Friend". These types of people follow Quakerish principles but may reject the existence of God. Therefore, an atheist can be very religious. 140.254.226.233 15:57, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you are 140.254.227.140 who vented at Talk:God, please give it a rest. This is a comedy wiki, this page was written by volunteers, and your opinion that there is one right way to write such articles, or that the ones that resulted fail to be scrupulously neutral, is simply tedious. Your remarks at Talk:God took too much serious work to reply to, by too many good writers who would otherwise have been doing useful work. Either get started on your own articles--but be prepared for them to coexist, through disambiguation pages, with the articles already here, or take your self-righteous lectures to a website where people care. Spıke ¬ 16:46 18-Mar-13
As a matter of fact, I am that IP address. Same person behind the computer and everything. I am sorry if I have caused any discomfort, disruptance, or annoyance in the Uncyclopedia community, but honestly, I am simply making commentary about the article. Actually, I do not wish anybody to enforce what I say or heed my words. All I am doing is making my own commentaries of the article, as I think that is what the Discussion button is for. The more time I spend on Uncyclopedia, the more I realize that the Uncyclopedia culture is significantly different from the Wikipedia culture. For one thing, there is no "Stay Neutral" policy, and why of course, it's Uncyclopedia! 140.254.227.96 18:54, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
Now you're making sense! But discussion on this page should promote the betterment of the article, not be expositions of doctrine that will tie us up in debate. Seriously, pick a user name, stick around, and show us what you can do (remembering at all times that we are not Wikipedia--but are supposed to superficially resemble it). Cheers! Spıke ¬ 19:07 18-Mar-13
I just want to add that the word "doctrine" is not what you think it means. Sure, there are "religious doctrines", but there are also philosophical doctrines and scientific doctrines. The term "doctrine" means something that is widely accepted at a certain time and place by some people. Religious doctrines, however, are interpreted to mean "something that cannot change", but honestly, I think that definition really reflects the conservative attitude toward "doctrine", who presumably do not want doctrines to change. Conservative = Resistance to Change. 140.254.227.96 20:49, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
Adding the adjective religious to doctrine would be a tedious task, and wouldn't be beneficial in increasing understanding. Tedious, by the way, is a portmanteau of Latin, from te + dietās, which is the Latin letter T - a common abbreviation for talk - and the word for god. Which would suggest that harping on about god(s) is definitively tedious.                               Puppy's talk page09:56 18 Mar 2013

edit Atheism "religion"

Atheism is not a religion. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.150.90.241 (talk • contribs)

It is if the assertion leads to humor. Atheism does require articles of "faith," which can be used for irony. Do you understand that this is a humor wiki? Spıke ¬ 10:22 16-Oct-13
Personal tools
projects