Talk:Organised religion
From Pee Review[edit]
I’ve been trying to create an article for a long time about how much I hate religion. My first attempt, changing the God article, didn’t go down too well. I decided to take the “new” God article and edit it elsewhere: The funny version of the God article; the title was an attempt to relieve my childish frustration that no other users shared my noble vision. I’ve now decided to abandon an article about God and create one solely about religion and its “delightful effects upon mankind”. I just decided to copy my old article and add a new opening paragraph. There is some really funny stuff on here and I feel it would be a shame to lose it all, but I feel it needs some adjusting so it talks about religion in general (religion today and throughout history – Jesus appearing on the game show “crucifixion!” for instance) and not just about God.
Please note that I would like all the Bill O’Reillyesque ranting about politics and current events left in – these are the examples of what religion has given us (and why I fucking hate it so much). War out. Weri long wang 18:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, you didn't mention this was the exact same as The funny version of the God article! Whatever, I had read that one before anyways and I guess I'd better put up or shut up. Here I go.
- Now, I too, detest organised religion, more specifically Christianity, and consider myself an atheist. Partly because of that I found comfort and humor in this article. But, consider another renaming, for this article has nothing to do with the other organised religions (Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, et cetera, all the -isms). I truly felt as though the anger was completely directed towards Christianity. I've got no problem with that, considering that if there is a God, we're all going to Hell anyways, but I thought the repitition about war, plague, famine, war, plague, famine, war, plague, and famine was a bit much. Either change the name, or add to the main body. Either than that, I thought the article was pretty good. Personally, I prefer to sprinkle in my own opinions about religion from time to time in various articles rather than go for the long haul, but that's just me. Anyways, good luck with that, and I'll see you in Hell. --Señor DiZtheGreat
CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 22:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the article needs structure. Structure and logical flow. If you want to go with 'Organised religion' then consider including stuff like --
- Jewish fundies under the leadership of Moses massacred the Midianites, including women and infant children. The virgin girls were used as sex-slaves. And the Jews are still murdering non-Jews in the same region to this day. Praise YHWH!
- Hindu fundies massacred around 2000 Muslims at Gujarat in 2002. The killers gang-raped the Muslim women before burning them alive. Praise Brahma and Shiva!
- Muslim fundies massacred 3000 civilians in the World Trade Center, and killed more in Madrid and London. Praise Allah!
- In revenge for the Muslim killings, a self-professed Christian nation has killed roughly 140,000 civilians in Iraq. That's quite a ratio -- almost 50-to-1. And the Iraqis didn't have anything to do with the original World Trade Center massacre. Praise Jesus!
- Religion has nothing to do with reality: it is a mental delusion which benefited the bronze-age tribesman by allowing him to kill his neighbors and rape their kids and feel righteous and holy while he was doing it. Nothing much has changed from the savagery of the bronze-age leader Moses to the savagery of born-again Christian George Bush -- the Hindus and Muslims and Christians and Jews are still feeling righteous and holy while they kill other people. Praise all gods, the Great Delusions!
The point is to make a logical progression here. To tie your ideas together with structure and make them flow smoothly one to the next.
You have a lot of personal investment in this article. Therefore it is most likely going to be hard for you to do major restructuring, especially if it means discarding some of what you've written. (That feeling is natural.) But I think you need a solid structure that presents a progression of ideas that builds to your final conclusions. A scatter-gun approach -- lots of rant, not much connecting logic -- makes it hard for me to read the article all the way through. Just my opinion, of course. ----OEJ 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)