Friction can be a drag

In the interests of free speech…just make it interesting

Bit of a rant…

with 36 comments

I apologise in advance because this post will be a bit of a rant…

I hate religion.

It is possibly one of the most ridiculous things ever. Not only is it the root of most disputes but it is so backward thinking. Ok, I will qualify which religion I mainly hate; Christianity. How can any educated person truly believe any of the shit that is spouted out of religious leaders mouths. The obvious things to pick out as being RIDICULOUS are the pope saying that condoms shouldn’t be worn even in countries where aids is rife… or (and a pet hate of mine obvious to anyone who knows me) ‘women aren’t allowed to be priests…’ Fire this at a religious person and they say, “well, you can pick and choose what you believe out of the faith.” This begs the question; What is the point? If you are only going to pick the sugar coated, frilly niceties than why follow such a backward thinking, racist, sexist, pathetic doctrine.

I have yet to hear a good reason for following such religions as catholicism, and please, please don’t give me the whole ‘humans need something greater than themselves to believe in’ shit. Religion does not make us better people, it does not dictate whether we have morals, or are good people. In fact, it probably makes us condescending, bigoted people. It is not the reason we help the poor, or don’t cheat on our spouses, or kill or covert our neighbours asses. This is education and upbringing.

I would welcome a good reason to believe, if there was one. But there isn’t!


Written by sanchezdemarcos

December 7, 2006 at 5:16 am

Posted in faith, rants

36 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Yup, theyre all a bagoshite.
    Don’t just condemn the Abrahamic religions though – never forget the foolishness of the Hindoos, Jains, Sikhs etc. And don’t let the Bhuddists off either – full of religious dogma and bollocks.
    I wrote on my hand this morning: “Anti-God Flyer”…can anyone help me get one together so I can start handing out on the street?


    December 7, 2006 at 9:51 am

  2. Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature.

    Chuang-tzu – Joined Toes


    December 7, 2006 at 5:07 pm

  3. Igotlife – what do you mean the foolishness of the sikhs. are you condeming a religion without actually knowing a single godddamned thing about it. i hate you already.
    Which brings me onto the next point. Condemning religion is fine and seems to be trendy at the moment, by I know many people of varying faiths, who do believe, do not take religious doctrine literally, and live good lives, not judging others and addng to society. Surely they are better than the godless chavs ruining this counntry.

    Practical Pat

    December 7, 2006 at 8:06 pm

  4. How can that possibly be a comparison? Yes, your mates might be better than the ‘godless chavs’. (although I don’t think that it is because they are godless that they are ‘ruining the country’!) But if you are going to take an extreme like chavs maybe they aren’t as bad as the extreme of the religious spectrum. Me thinks not!

    unique forms

    December 8, 2006 at 3:50 am

  5. Also, are you saying that those people who you know of ‘varying faiths, who do believe, do not take religious doctrine literally, and live good lives, not judging others and adding to society’ wouldn’t be doing this if you took religion away from them. Anyway, aren’t we all a little old to be discussing imaginary friends, and who has the best one, be it God, Allah, Jehovah whatever…

    unique forms

    December 8, 2006 at 4:39 am

  6. Pat – What makes you think that I know nothing about Sikhism? What do you know about chavs? Don’t condemn until you know what it is like to be raised a chav and live and die by the chav code. Long live Burberry!
    Sikhism has numerous ridiculous ideas and dogmas as do all religions and also believes in one God. Thats enough for my to say it is a bagoshite…and I’d tell Guru Nanak that in person if I could.


    December 8, 2006 at 9:37 am

  7. I fundamentally agree with everything Unique Forms has said.

    Igolife – I’ll help you put a flyer together and i’ll even help you give it out. Perhaps we can go a step further and bang on peoples doors early on a sunday morning before they go to church, mosque, synagogue and show them teh error of their ways?

    As for singling chavs out as the scourge of the nation, this is middle class clap trap and only highlights your ignorance. Easy to point the finger at people who have had less opportunities than you at almost every level. Condeming and marginalising is hardly engaging and will never help to resolve the issues you are pointing at – sorry to digress but this chav bashing is middle class dinner party crap.

    Religion has been given far too much time and space to put their stall out, i think it’s time for Atheist to unite and start to provide a counterbalans – perhaps start a movement called Atheists/Agnostics for change, promoting the novel notion of being a good person, not because God thinks you should or to avoid some eternal punishment but because it it is right to do full stop.

    After all, the Ten commandments took it’s lead from society’s unsaid principles until Moses than repackeged them with a load of God shite stuff and gave it to the masses.


    December 8, 2006 at 12:21 pm

  8. Surely all religion should be seen as a book of guideline’s and nothing more, if everyone paid more attention to the essence of what most religions teach rather than arguing about the specific dotting of i’s and crossing of t’s you’d be able to erradicate 99% of all war.
    All the fanatics should really just get a life to live rather than being hell bent on forcing their views onto the weak minded in the hope of getting one over on some other “rival” religion…


    December 8, 2006 at 2:41 pm

  9. There is a slight divergence in this blog between what it means to be good, and what it means to be godly.

    No one can dispute that non-godly people can be good. It is also equally apparent that supposedly godly people can also be evil.

    If we look at an axis, the only perfect cell is the trully god conscious who are only good, by the definition of being godly. Any evil god conscious people are by definition not godly.

    The actual point of religion is not moral behaviour (don’t kill “except evil people”), nor is it guidelines on action (not eating onions for instance). Good behaviour does not liberate the human being. Religion is actually about GOD.

    This is what all religions share, and what atheists and agnostics can’t comprehend. God is the only purpose of life (service to God), the only meaning of mental endeavour (contemplation of God), and the only source of escape from the material existence.

    So, at least as an enemy of God you can contemplate Him, thus satisfying one of the legs. You may even do round about service by raising the profile, and encouraging moral behaviour (which is a service to God).


    December 8, 2006 at 4:45 pm

  10. It is NOT about contemplating God.
    It is about contemplating the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
    You fool.
    How can the purpose of life be about contemplating something you CANNOT even know exists??


    December 8, 2006 at 8:24 pm

  11. If the flying spagetti monster is your ideal form of God. If you can induce love for the flying spagetti monster in your heart, if you can have 24 hour contemplation and thought… then this is another form of God, and as legitimate as the rest.

    Of course, our natural and pre-disposed understanding of the nature, form, and quality of God would not allow us to worship something as ridiculous as that. But if it was not so ridiculous, if it really evoked a quality, then it would be an aspect of God at least, perhaps a demi-god.

    The worship of this form would then be as good as all the others. The point you are missing is that you are not God, you were put in this material world for a reason, and your sufferings and happiness are a part of your condition as a human being.

    The contemplation of the other, through faith and understanding of meta-psychology, allows you to stop identifying with your body only, and recognize your soul, your sentience, and to access the spiritual plane. Even through the F.S.M. although I could show you this would be an inadequate channel.


    December 9, 2006 at 11:48 am

  12. Oh dear dear dear.
    Poor Poxinfinte.
    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head with “Of course, our natural and pre-disposed understanding of the nature, form, and quality of God would not allow us to worship something as ridiculous as that”

    Precisely. Your concept of God is just as ridiculous, unfounded & nonsensical as the FSM.
    You are incapable of describing your God without every sane person within hearing distance laughing at its absurdity.


    December 9, 2006 at 12:20 pm

  13. It depends on your definition of sanity. I suspect you only believe that people who agree with YOU are sane.

    There are plenty of sane people, including myself, who have spent the time thinking and delving into what the nature and quality of God could be. It is actually reasoned, intelligent, and natural.

    Intelligent, sane, and profound people such as Plato, Descartes, and Kant, amongst many others over all history have attempted this journey from scratch with great success.

    You can’t win this argument with ridiculous fictions and personal insult.


    December 9, 2006 at 7:49 pm

  14. Yeah sorry, my ridiculous fiction is nothing like your fiction.


    December 10, 2006 at 7:16 pm

  15. Seriously though – can you describe your god without him/she/it sounding as ridiculous as the FSM, or the faires at the bottom of the garden?
    i.e. like you might describe a scientific fact…


    December 10, 2006 at 7:36 pm

  16. Mr chairman of the Bored
    what do you mean – hating chavs is middle class clap-trap. do you really think religion poses more of a threat to our society than a disenfranchised and angry youth, who have no respect for anything or anyone,lacking ambition and hope. Sure, I dont like people who force religion on me, but to be perfectly honest – it is quite a rare occurence. However, much more common is my encounters with young burberry wearing gangs who can make a simple bus journey terrifying for passengers, just to name one of their misdeamours. If you think religion is more of a problem in this country, then you must be the middle class one , cocooned saftley from the nastier elements of society, or you are a chav. Either way, two jehovas witnesses knocking on my door trying to convert me is a lot less damaging to society in this country then 2 million worthless and jealous scum who want what you have, and look to help themselves to what you have worked hard and honestly for all of your life. tell me whats worse? yes, religion is bad – but is it really the worse thing in this country


    December 10, 2006 at 11:11 pm

  17. First off, well said full-english.

    Secondly. You asked for a non-ridiculous description of God.

    There are many of these:
    Most attractive
    Most powerful
    Most tolerant
    Most talented
    Most forgiving
    Most loving

    And on and on…

    Physically, extend your insight into attractiveness to reach for “most attractive” that’s how God would appear.

    It’s based on the principle that what we admire and find worthy in this world resonates with us for a reason.

    Yes, it demands that we aren’t a random occurence and production of a fluke path of dna replication. It says there is a reason for us to be here, and that we can understand that reason better in view of what is beyond us.


    December 11, 2006 at 10:22 am

  18. Thats not scientific.
    Thats how I would describe the fairies at the bottom of my garden.


    December 11, 2006 at 11:24 am

  19. It is based on the application of reason, (deductive), observation of the world and the nature of our experience (inductive), knowledge from previous thinkers (learning), and the reflection created by the unknown on the known.

    These are all scientific principles applied, for instance, in the observation of the “god particle” properly known as the Higgs Boson.

    Your understanding of science is severely retarded and simplistic. Your arguments even more so.

    It is the same type of reasoning that


    December 11, 2006 at 12:42 pm

  20. I think you mean the Higgs’ hypothetical scalar elementary particle, wrongly termed the god particle by god-botherers.

    Asserting that something exists with a list of unverifiable characteristics is not science.
    Just because intelligent thinkers once argued that the earth was flat and the it was the centre of the universe does not mean we should still be discussing it as science.

    Sorry if I’m being retarted and simplistic but I don’t have the benefit of having an imaginary friend who can inform me of scientific facts.


    December 11, 2006 at 3:50 pm

  21. You continue to miss the point about the exploration of mystery. Mystery that is confirmed in human experience, but not confirmed on the basis of analysis of our senses.

    Obviously Higg’s is hypothetical, and may or may not one day be proven. But something of its nature exists… that we know by the measured effect.

    A similar understanding points to the very concept of infinite, to life itself, and to the universal cause.

    You, and billions of others will die with no answer to these questions. And that is fair enough. What is worse, is that you will not even accept that there are mysteries to explore because somehow you cannot find it inside the visible spectrum…

    You use science as if it related to fact, and deny that it is more often about hypotheticals, and the entire universe describes one giant hypothetical mystery called God. Which can be approached through scientific means, God simply cannot be measured by scientific instruments.

    That is the overlap you hide your silly argument behind.


    December 11, 2006 at 4:47 pm

  22. I love it that you call MY argument silly! This from someone who thinks that repeating the name of god somehow gives you a higher state of consciousness!
    You miss the point.
    I, and millions of other non-believers love the mystery of the unexplained.
    We just don’t assert that we have the answers when they are clearly unprovable.
    And unlike you, although we continue to search for answers, we can live with the mysteries being mysteries.


    December 11, 2006 at 5:39 pm

  23. Poxinfinite… you are, at least ostensibly, an eloquent, intelligent person but do you talk like that all the time? Seriously, you’re beginning to scare me. I have a vision of you preparing some kind of Doomsday machine and maniacally singing ‘Bringing in the sheep’!

    Aren’t you even just a teensy-weensy bit curious about the possibility of there being no god? If not then I’m afraid you are ultimately ignorant. I may not know about Higgs Bassoon or all that shite but at least I’m intelligent enough to accept that if you can’t see, hear or touch something then it might just possibly not be there.

    Don’t get me wrong, the atheist’s beleiving something is not there just because they can’t see, hear or touch it is equally ignorant but at least they’ve used logic. That’s why I bought new Agnostic thinking… if you can’t prove something either way… why fucking try!!

    Igotlife and chairman… count me in. You may be interested in my Agnostic Carrolling Concept. Basically I’ll be going round to complete stranger’s houses and singing hymns such as ‘Evolution, You Gave Me Opposable Thumbs’, ‘We All Come From A Big, Big Bang’ and my personal favourite ‘Random Chance, Thanks For Nothing’.


    December 12, 2006 at 11:48 am

  24. We are finally closer than you imagine.

    The mystery is not merely something in a closet to lock away and IGNORE.

    You you love the mystery of the unexplained, and if you can live with them being mysteries, then you have actually found out how to comprehend GOD….

    The mystery that we love, that can never be explained, but is yet embraced and contemplated. Voila. You believe in God.

    Now, if you choose to meditate (a scientificaly proven practice that affects the brain… in a more positive way than the more radical and ellusive use of drugs), and if you choose to give the mystery form and substance so that you can approach it, then the mystery becomes personal and beautiful.

    I am willing to object to anyone claiming their form of the mystery is superior, when in fact it is personal. But I will not tolerate you claiming to ignore and dismiss the Mystery itself merely to attack ignorant fanatics at the expense of the truth itself.

    The truth of the mystery is the truth itself, as much as we can approach it directly.

    Some of us choose to approach it more mystically, and that is an exercise that you can only deride if you seek no meaning in your life, and at another level, if you take no drugs.


    December 12, 2006 at 11:52 am

  25. Hola Impotence,

    of course I can accept the idea that there is no God.

    From my experience and understanding of the world I have discredited this line of thinking. I believe the principle of God is expressed in our experience and existence.

    And I am content to take the leap of faith that brings me to that space and allows that belief to give purpose, understanding, and beauty to my experience.

    You can argue that I am like the drug user, trying to have purpose, and beauty in life through an artificial medium. But the mystery itself is true, and so the medium is part of the exploration.

    As to the idea we should only believe what we see, hear, smell etc… that is easily discredited and has no relation to the deeper exploration of life, even on a purely scientific level. It is a real trap to consciousness.


    December 12, 2006 at 12:03 pm

  26. IamJack – cant wait to go Agnostic Xmas Carolling!!!


    December 12, 2006 at 12:16 pm

  27. Point of note, I am an Agnostic and therefore have no presumption on the truth. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of things we can’t see, hear or touch. I tried to stress that either point of view is to some degree ignorant as it has no basis in proof.

    igotlife… I’m working on a new hymn. I’m calling it ‘About 2000 Years Ago It’s Safe To Assume That A Child Called Jesus Was Born In Bethlehem To Mary And Joseph But Any Further Speculation Is Futile’… catchy eh?!


    December 12, 2006 at 12:33 pm

  28. I like it!
    Gotta pick you up on “things you cant see” though: you have never seen oxygen, atoms, love, hate etc. Maybe you mean things you cant sense? Even then you’ll have a problem with things like existense, space, time etc…


    December 12, 2006 at 12:49 pm

  29. You’re just trying to confuse me now! Just for the hell of it I’m sticking with it though… from now on I don’t believe in oxygen or space either! To be fair you’d have a tough time proving they do exist. I kind of look upon my Agnosticism as blissful ignorance, plus it’s nice not to have to committ to things!


    December 12, 2006 at 1:03 pm

  30. On that note, I can also not believe in you 🙂 although I accept that your words somehow exist, but beyond that, I will not speculate any further.


    December 12, 2006 at 2:19 pm

  31. you set yorself up for that one Jack!


    December 12, 2006 at 3:37 pm

  32. You’re wise to be wary… I could just be a figment of your imagination! To be fair though you could see me and if you were really nice to me I might even let you touch me!!


    December 12, 2006 at 4:29 pm

  33. That’s the same thing God said to a few people… hahaha, follow a certain process over time and you can see God and maybe even touch him.

    I’ll take your words on faith and HIS too, because I’m a pretty befuddled and easily-deceived, unwary brain washed religious nut.



    December 13, 2006 at 12:34 pm

  34. I only believe in two things (.)(.)!!


    December 13, 2006 at 12:58 pm

  35. Having read this thread I felt I had to comment, despite the fact that it’s probably a little late for anyone to read and that I’m mostly ignorant.
    Firstly, as a chav I must either protest or demand an exact definition of the word. I am as ‘cancil scum’ as they come and I have a burberry fixation but get this…. I also strive with diligence to be a good person. So am I chav or do I get to be termed just low or middle class?
    Secondly, while I am wholeheartedly non-religious I am also God, and so is my wife. How can that be? How do you define the God word when it means something different for each of us?
    It could be that this should have been a new thread (having read it back) but oh well.


    December 22, 2006 at 10:10 am

  36. yeahbutnobut – an aspirational chav is not a chav.
    You cant be god…I am.
    Think you should start a new thread about this tho!


    December 23, 2006 at 12:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: