Talk:It doesn't matter what your answer is as long as you feel good about it

I certainly know what my answer would be... -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

problem

whats the problem here? --Poobear 11:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you want to remove those things from the article? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There not funny and attacky. Why do you want to keep those things on the article? --Poobear 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I think fundies and smartass scientists shouldn't impose their views on us. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like your imposing your existentialist views on us. --Poobear 11:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I just make it sound logical. Is there any conclusion you don't agree with? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All I'm trying to say with those passages is "Don't just believe everything because it's in the Bible." and "Don't believe everything just because scientists say it is that way." —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

And why do you delete the "God's in his heaven" link? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not about what I do/do not agree with. Those lines are unfunny and attacky so I deleted them. Uncyclopedia is a humoros wiki, not a lets show other people my opinion wiki. --Poobear 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's satire. This article takes a rather clear stance, despite claiming that any answer is good as long as you feel good about it. It's part of the satire. The article shows a certain opinion and I intended it that way. This whole article is nothing more than an opinion. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 00:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If any answer is good as long as you feel good about it, what is wrong with the answers of religion and science as long as the person feels good about it? --Poobear 01:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point of it. The article itself defends certain statements. The ones you dislike are part of that. It's all part of the "My belief is the right one" thing going on, also in this article. It is intentional. It's not because Uncyclopedia is a humour wiki that anything somewhat attacky and stuff that's only funny in the context of the article should be removed from every article. Have you read a lot of the featured articles? A lot of them are quite attacky. As the original author of this article (yes, I'm that IP) I say it's intentional and part of the satire. I don't want it removed. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that we are getting nowhere with this debating? --Poobear 01:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That depends on whether you're going to stop removing that stuff. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 07:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Decent article

What's happening with it? It says incomplete, any plans? I thought it was well written... El-Sid

Maybe I'll add a few more sections at a certain point. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is one of my most favorite articles here. It's funny, presents a good point, and presents an interesting setup. Xander (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)