Stoney

To date, the most beautiful album I have ever heard in my life. I realize, however, that I am very ignorant, and that by deepening my listening, one day I might not think so anymore. In fact, often when an album enjoys such popularity, it is never a masterpiece in its genre, because if it truly were, it would not be able to reach the mainstream audience. By the way, it is really very difficult for an album to be both accessible and complex; it is much more likely that it is a product of a lower standard compared to others of a much higher level, but it has become famous precisely because of its ease of listening.

Rick Puro, who is he? An Italian-American hitman straight out of a Tarantino movie?

What’s the name of the singer!?!?!? No, I’m not laughing; that would be too little. I’m silent and my mind is emptied of thoughts. It’s a meta-laugh. It’s incredible how some people have their fate inevitably written in their name.

The fact that science has not explained everything does not mean that we must necessarily think of the existence of a God who orders things. 300 years ago, quantum mechanics was simply unfathomable; who knows what we will discover in another 300 years. However, I believe that mankind will never be able to understand the why of EVERYTHING, but even if we remain ignorant about many things, this will certainly not be proof of God's existence, since a physical law can exist independently of whether we know how to articulate it or not, or whether we discover it or not. Furthermore, I don't take issue with those who "believe," as long as this remains confined within the private space of their own feelings. I would also be quite foolish to think that one should not have spirituality, or that mere materialism encompasses the entirety of human existence. If I were that way, I wouldn't read, I wouldn't listen to music, I wouldn't seek friendship with others. What's certain is that we must be able to distinguish between what pertains to the private spiritual sphere and what is instead the external world, and this thing is called "secularism," a concept that many still have difficulty understanding. I can't stand it when someone tries to say, "God exists because, colon." No one can take away the spiritual feeling inside you, believe me; it's talking about it as if something universal and superior actually exists that is an absolutely unnecessary next step. Even among you Christians, if you only spoke, you would realize that each of you has a personal and different view and relationship with God compared to others. In Katarsys, their God communicates death and destruction against the infidels; to someone else, He represents a far more comprehensible hope for a painful and difficult life. Yet the God is the same; you all go to the same church to listen to the same mass. How do you explain that? Here, the role of a religious authority like the Church becomes clearer: it harnesses the spontaneous feelings of believers towards a presumed unified vision. You believers should be the ones getting angry about this, instead of defending it. It deprives you of your imagination, gives you invisible guidelines to channel your feelings, tells you what is right and what is wrong to believe. What many don't understand, in my opinion, is that one's personality comes first, and then the way to live religion: if someone is violent, they will find in God a justification for violence; if someone is calm and composed, they will find in God a reason for understanding others. It is one's way of being that determines the relationship with religion, not the other way around. What use is a religion that teaches moral values if everyone is capable of interpreting them in their own way? Not to mention that if you had been born in New Delhi, you would still be you, with the same character and way of thinking, but you would have entrusted your soul to some other divinity, or you would have found in it a justification for your desire for revenge against the infidels. Excuse me, but it's all too relative to be something real.

Alright, I'm fed up, I'm stepping away. Carrying on discussions with Nazi-Christian fundamentalists isn’t stupid, it’s simply pointless.

Fantastic. Here, someone says that probably there is no God, and what do you respond? "God loves us," "God sent His son"? Poor fools, you really haven’t understood anything. This is exactly what needs to be dismantled: saying "God loves us" does not prove that God exists. But is this a difficult concept? It doesn’t seem so to me. Let me explain it in simpler terms: if I say that a thing X does not exist, you cannot respond "X said, X did," because first you need to show me that X exists; otherwise, that statement makes no sense. Quite logical, right? Are you able to demonstrate what you believe in, or can you only parrot the notions you have been soaked in since birth?

@Katarsys. "my confession largely refuses to listen to men, and directs it more directly to God." This thing has a scientific name: "autosuggestion"; in more severe cases, instead, "schizophrenia."

@Katarsys: "be envious like a pig about not being able to believe in God." Ah, because now "believing in God" is something one must "succeed" at, because it's difficult, it's an enterprise that only a few enlightened ones can accomplish, a tremendous effort that only a select few can afford. What a way to elevate ignorance to a new form of dignity, really. I don’t think Odifreddi is throwing dirt on the moral rules of religion; rather, the very concept of "moral rules of religion" is flawed from the start (which ones, the obscurantist ones, the repressive ones, those that had you burning witches at the stakes, or the hyper-masculine ones with a more modern flavor that you believe in today?). But after all, this is all you have to counter with; you can’t grasp anything more. It always happens like this; when you see that someone is pulling the rug out from under you, you get furious, turn into wild beasts, scare yourselves silly, and try to shift the focus to your own territory: morality, the right path, the greatness of men of faith, charitable works. You’re clowns that no longer make anyone laugh; seeing you argue your theses is like watching an old man trying to score. You throw out everything without any logical rule; your purpose is just to throw into the pot as many guilty and moralistic things as possible to try to prove the unprovable superiority of a backward and totalitarian way of thinking. You even go so far as to imply, between the lines, that the crucifix is the only official sponsor of morality without feeling any shame, not realizing that you are actually belittling the ideals that you claim to defend, that you are merely the idolaters that the same Christ criticized so much in the Gospel. But go tell this fairy tale to those who believe it, not to us who know well how things are. Dear Katarsys, we atheists do not need an oracle to show us the way, or a handful of charlatans in robes to fill us with THEIR beliefs about what is truly right and what is truly wrong: we leave that to you who lack the ability to think for yourselves, who always need a finger pointing in the direction to go, who, faced with a moral dilemma, turn to God (that is, to priests, that is, to men, who tell you what is most convenient for them), who are unable to realize that no man has infused truth, not even those dressed in robes with a little symbol hanging around their necks that have more years and meanings than you can imagine. Hold tight to your ability to believe in God, be proud of it, perhaps even feel like one of the few who can do so, despite being surrounded by millions of sheep in the flock exactly like you. You might be the best sheep in the flock, Katarsys, but you’ll always remain a sheep.

"Basically, all those (like me) who have tried to bring a different point of view on this site have been crudely attacked without a valid reason." So, if you are claiming your right to say whatever nonsense comes to your mind, that’s one thing; otherwise, if you are talking about coming here to sing the artistic praises of Alexia, I assure you there is a valid reason for being attacked.

@Gustavo, it’s the same thing. Let’s say it’s 10 years instead of 20, the essence doesn’t change: why every time they release a new album everyone has to complain as if it were some sort of revelation remains unclear. I mean, I expected that a U2 album today wouldn’t be like The Unforgettable Fire; I don’t understand where the scandal is. It’s like expecting a 40-year-old player to still perform like he did when he was 20 and regretting it just because he used to be a great champion. What sense does that make? I mean… I don’t know, it seems normal to me; it’s not a sign of some dire fate or mysterious reason. There are people talking about selling out to the market (and when have U2 ever been far from market choices?), I think it’s simply that over time ideas fade and creativity dwindles, except in very rare cases that can be counted on one hand (and U2 are not among them). U2 meant a lot for rock music at a certain historical moment, but that time has passed now, and like all great bands, they had two choices: either retire or continue to tour the world, reinventing themselves. Clearly, they opted for the second option, just like many other bands that don’t receive the same treatment. Can you tell me why? I don’t want to come off as someone defending U2. I’m totally fine with saying they suck like nailed wooden planks, but I don’t understand the reason for the scandal and/or surprise with every new release. Regards.