What kind of -ism is most appealing to you?

[ComradeMan]

Just curious to know where RevLefter fit on the atheism-theism scale as used by Dawkins (p50 The God Delusion).

I've posted this because the other polls don't really deal with belief and put atheism in one bracket etc etc etc.

I wasn't sure where some religions like Buddhism and Jainism would fit on this- so let's include them as "theisms" in the sense of they have a belief in a "supernatural".

[Kamos]

De facto atheist, I suppose.

[Ballyfornia]

Strong Atheist, but why does anyone care?

[ComradeMan]

Strong Atheist, but why does anyone care?

Well, isn't it interesting to know what the members of a virtual community in which you form a part believe or how their outlook is?

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

Either strong atheist or de facto atheist. I do kinda look forward to going to hell

[Nox]

Strong atheist.

[ComradeMan]

Either strong atheist or de facto atheist. I do kinda look forward to going to hell

Why? You don't believe in it.

[Bronco]

Agnostic leaning towards Athiesm, I'd probably identify as an Athiestic Agnostic; I see no reason to believe in a diety or any concrete evidence to suggest there is one but at the same time I'm open minded to the possibility and recognise that there is still a lot that we don't know about the Universe and our whole existence.

[Tomhet]

Atheist.

[Caj]

De facto atheist, although extremely close to strong atheist. What are you, ComradeMan?

[Die Rote Fahne]

De Facto atheist.

[Tim Cornelis]

Apatheism. Religion is ridiculous, but I don't really care.

[Revolution starts with U]

Humanist... better yet, existencist

[ComradeMan]

Humanist... better yet, existencist

So you are a Cartesian humanist then?

[Revolution starts with U]

Not really. I am of the school that says the mind is a physical thing, albeit an obscure one. As I said in another thread, I don't really believe in anything metaphysical. Not in the sense that things can't happen (like miracles or magic, etc). But that if they happened, they happened, in the real world. If God and angels are running the show, then that's it.
Things happen, and then you describe it. Doing it the other way is like shooting in the dark. If you hit, it's pretty much pure coincidence.
But yes, in the sense that I (experience a reality that acts as if I) exist, therefore I try to do basic upkeep on it.

[Red And Black Sabot]

De facto Atheist even though I'm actually staunchly atheist. I voted de facto if only because for me atheism isn't something I believe in but a position that looks at material reality, what we know, and what we can prove as a way of understanding the cosmos. I don't believe in god because it isn't logical. There is no evidence to point to the existence of a god or evidence of its intervention in our world. If you can prove that god/s exist/s, I won't stop you and I'd actually really appreciate it on a scientific level but... That's not ever going to happen.

[PlayAlone64]

Anti-theistic strong atheist.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[Ocean Seal]

De Facto theist for me.

[Astarte]

Strong theist. :D

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I was wondering if there is any correlation between those who regard themselves as "strong atheists" or "strong anti-theists" and those who come from very strict religious families or grow up or live in a strict religious part of the world (such as the US South, parts of the Middle East or India).

Are strong atheists more prone to come from (for example) US "bible belt" states? Are moderately spiritual people more prone come from regions where there is less social pressure to conform to a patriarchal religion? Do people have different interpretations of what religion and spirituality is? For some it could be occasional Vispassana meditation, jogging or gardening,for others it could be intense pressure to attend the local Baptist revival meeting. This may make differences in one's attitude.

Could it be possible that reductionist, absolutist, intolerant fundamentalism breeds militant atheism?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

My own perspective, I guess I'm spiritual and somewhat anti-religious. At the same time I have a strong amateur interest in religions and religious history.I don't understand this myself.

I admit to being interested in parapsychology. I meditate, on and off (mostly off). I've had flashes of something, I don't know what.

Years ago I went to a psychic (crazy, I know). This person didn't know me from Adam but told me some very personal things about my life.She said I would hate war (very true) because I've been killed in many wars. She said I would have an interest in religion. My many previous lifetimes were something to do with religion.I would not want to follow this path know because I've "done it already"

Yeah, I know I'm deluded.I need more of that Opium of the Mases

[Aspiring Humanist]

I have no proof nor will I ever find any nor am I saying this is true but I like to think there is something out there , but if there is she/he/it is a major asshole

[Dogs On Acid]

Strong Atheists are just as dumb as Strong Theists. We Atheists use the Scientific Method to prove our arguments (Genetics, Astrology, Geology, etc.), as we haven't a scientific argument yet to disprove the existence of a Metaphysical God, we cannot be 100% sure he does not exist. But we can be quite confident about it due to Religion being proved wrong time and time again.

So there can be no 100% Atheist with a true understanding of Theology and Science.

Naturalistic Pantheist De Facto Atheist here.

[Garret]

"De Facto Atheist", but I'd call it "Agnostic Atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)" because Agnosticism isn't a "middle-ground" belief, it's a statement about knowledge.

My general position is that I don't believe in deities but then again I doubt such a things' existence could be known anyway.

[Ostrinski]

Somewhere in between de facto and agnostic atheism. I chose de facto.

[Mac]

I suppose strong atheist, though I don't know what a "de facto" atheist is.

[thefinalmarch]

"De Facto Atheist", but I'd call it "Agnostic Atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)" because Agnosticism isn't a "middle-ground" belief, it's a statement about knowledge.

My general position is that I don't believe in deities but then again I doubt such a things' existence could be known anyway.
This.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xzhk-eWktZs/TaWvNgUoU5I/AAAAAAAAAZM/UF0UWNl_srA/s1600/atheism-agnosticism.png
This existence or non-existence of god(s) cannot be proved or disproved.


You are making a negative (disbelief) assertation into a positive (belief) one, which is an incorrect understanding of atheism.

Atheism is actually copuled with agnosticism. Agnosticism is an epistemological position, while atheism is a theological one. Most self-described agnostics are actually agnostic atheists. Virtually all self-described atheists are agnostic atheists as well, they disbelieve in god because they do not find enough evidence to support said belief (theism). Most atheists do not claim that they "know" there's no god nor hold a belief (in the same level as theists, i.e. claiming to know {gnostic}) that god doesn't exist.

The disbelief could be said to be held as an assumption, based out of Occam's Razor where you choose the "simplest" or less hypothetical (hypothetical concepts being those with little to no evidence) explanation.

[Dogs On Acid]

This existence or non-existence of god(s) cannot be proved or disproved.

That is completely relative as to what you consider a God in the first place. My God can be proved scientifically, for it is Nature, the Universe and the Laws of Physics.

A metaphysical God cannot be disproved (yet) scientifically because it is metaphysical, but it can be refuted philosophically.

[thefinalmarch]

That is completely relative as to what you consider a God in the first place. My God can be proved scientifically, for it is Nature, the Universe and the Laws of Physics.
You're an idiot if you consider such things to be a god. Spare me the bullshit.


A metaphysical God cannot be disproved (yet) scientifically because it is metaphysical, but it can be refuted philosophically.
I couldn't give two fucks for most philosophy.


No scientific experiment exists which can test for the existence of non-existence of any deity.

[ComradeMan]

You're an idiot if you consider such things to be a god. Spare me the bullshit. I couldn't give two fucks for most philosophy. No scientific experiment exists which can test for the existence of non-existence of any deity.

Don't trash the guy because of his belief and call him an idiot. What gives you that right?
:thumbdown:

[manic expression]

From those options, I guess I'd say "de facto theist".

[thefinalmarch]

Don't trash the guy because of his belief and call him an idiot. What gives you that right?
:thumbdown:
Well, it bears very little relation to the following definitions:

Noun

god (plural gods (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gods#English))


A deity (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deity):

A supernatural (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supernatural), typically immortal (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/immortal) being with superior (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/superior) powers (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power).
A male (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/male) deity.

2002. Chuck Palahniuk. Lullaby: When ancient Greeks had a thought, it occurred to them as a god or goddess giving an order. Apollo was telling them to be brave. Athena was telling them to fall in love.


A supreme being (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supreme_being); God (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/God), typically in some particular view or aspect.


An idol (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idol)

A representation of a deity, notably a statue (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/statue)(tte).
Something or someone particularly revered, worshipped (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/worship), idealized, admired and/or followed.


(metaphor) A person in a high position of authority (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/authority); a powerful ruler (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ruler) or tyrant (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tyrant).
An exceedingly handsome man. Lounging on the beach were several Greek gods.

Noun

deity (plural deities (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deities#English))


(mythology (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mythology)), (religion) A preternatural (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/preternatural) or supernatural (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/supernatural) human or non-human being or entity, or an object that possesses miraculous or supernatural attributes, powers or superpowers (e.g. a god (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god) or goddess (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/goddess)).
(mythology (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mythology)), (religion) The divine character of a divinity (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divinity), god or goddess.
(mythology (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mythology)), (religion) A being, entity or object revered as a god or goddess.



Unless of course you worship nature, the universe, and the laws of physics. Which would be dumb.

[Thirsty Crow]

I voted de facto atheist since the other option, "strong atheist", kinda resembled anti-theism.
So, in short, I don't believe in anything resembling a god, I don't believe in anything metaphysical, and I don't have a reason to. If it could be proven that such an entity exists (and it cannot be proven), I still wouldn't have any use for such a belief.


But I'm curious, does Dawkins equate strong atheism with a kind of an anti-theism?

[StoneFrog]

Im a Duelist Pantheist

thefinalmarch your ignorance is astounding, and insulting to the rest of the people on this board. The view of god being one with the universe and not a metaphysical being has been around for centuries. Following your praxis of proving god has to be metaphysical, i'm sure i can prove that we as communists don't believe in the "true" form of communism; do believe such a thing is idiotic in the whole sense of the word.

[Dogs On Acid]

But I'm curious, does Dawkins equate strong atheism with a kind of an anti-theism?

Dawkins is a De Facto Atheist and Anti-Theist at the same time. You don't have to be a Fanatical Atheist to be Anti-Theist like myself.

[ComradeMan]

Well, it bears very little relation to the following definitions: Unless of course you worship nature, the universe, and the laws of physics. Which would be dumb.

So? That's a bullshit defense.

It's his right to believe or not believe whatever he wants without being ridiculed by you- as long as he is not harming others or forcing you to believe that.

So what if his own definition doesn't match some abbreviated web-dictionary's?

I set up this poll to enquire what people believed/didn't believe and it doesn't create a great atmosphere if when people respond they are ridiculed for their belief.

[Dogs On Acid]

Im a Duelist Pantheist.

Could you elaborate on Duelist Pantheism? How does it compare to Naturalistic Pantheism?

[thefinalmarch]

So? That's a bullshit defense.

It's his right to believe or not believe whatever he wants without being ridiculed by you- as long as he is not harming others or forcing you to believe that.

So what if his own definition doesn't match some abbreviated web-dictionary's?

I set up this poll to enquire what people believed/didn't believed and it doesn't create a great atmosphere if when people respond they are ridiculed for their belief.
I'm an arrogant fuckwit and I screwed up. It wasn't my right to ridicule him for his position. I get that.


Let's try it again from the top. Dogs on Acid, if I may respectfully ask, how can you say that such concepts as nature, the universe, and the laws of physics are indeed gods in their own right? That is, how do you define a god (and if your definition is personal, how does it relate to the more widely accepted definitions?), and what sense of the terms 'nature', 'the universe' and 'the laws of physics' are you referring to? Could you please justify your personal opinion?

[StoneFrog]

Could you elaborate on Duelist Pantheism? How does it compare to Naturalistic Pantheism?

Its very much like Naturalistic Pantheism, but differs in its belief of spiritualism. Where Naturalistic approach is that everything resides as physical material, dualism is physical and spiritual.

[ComradeMan]

I'm an arrogant fuckwit and I screwed up. It wasn't my right to ridicule him for his position. I get that.

Fair to you. :thumbup1:

Peace.

[Thirsty Crow]

It's his right to believe or not believe whatever he wants without being ridiculed by you
See, here's where you go wrong.
The right to religious observation and belief does not entail that, once public communication is open, no negative remarks should be allowed.

[ComradeMan]

See, here's where you go wrong.
The right to religious observation and belief does not entail that, once public communication is open, no negative remarks should be allowed.

Bullshit. "Negative remarks" and "critique" -or insulting people? Anyway, the guy has apologised so that's the end of it.

[Dogs On Acid]

I'm an arrogant fuckwit and I screwed up. It wasn't my right to ridicule him for his position. I get that.


Let's try it again from the top. Dogs on Acid, if I may respectfully ask, how can you say that such concepts as nature, the universe, and the laws of physics are indeed gods in their own right? That is, how do you define a god (and if your definition is personal, how does it relate to the more widely accepted definitions?), and what sense of the terms 'nature', 'the universe' and 'the laws of physics' are you referring to? Could you please justify your personal opinion?

A God is not necessarily metaphysical, but could be physical, as long as it lays down rules (such as the speed of light) and has the power to create and destroy at a universal level. It does not have to have consciousness, nor does it have to bear any morals.

Nature creates, Nature destroys and Nature sets the rules that govern our Universe and possible others.

It is to me, a God, as there is nothing that bears it's power.

What you are comparing it to, is the Abrahamic conception of it.

Now the fact that I consider the collective of all material reality and laws to be a God doesn't necessarily prove or disprove that there is another God above it that created Nature, so, I am still a De Facto Atheist when it comes to Yahweh.

[Dogs On Acid]

See, here's where you go wrong.
The right to religious observation and belief does not entail that, once public communication is open, no negative remarks should be allowed.

Ridiculing is one thing, constructive criticism is another.

I am an Anti-Theist but I don't go around calling Christians or Muslims dumb or stupid, just confused and misguided.

Now, religion itself, is a bit "stupid", because it provides no scientific proof of it's basic assumptions.

[Luc]

Agnostic leaning to Atheism

As others said we can't disprove/prove fully the existance of god (with multiple definitions) so that dictates my response.

But I'm anti-theist if the theist part strictly refers to the abrahamic religions.

I have an unjustified disdain for all spirituality:lol: but again; can't fully disprove/prove so I'm spoken for.

[graymouser]

As a materialist, I picked "De Facto Atheist." Every religion is clearly made up, by humans, and the "gods" of those religions are nothing more than self serving reflections of their own ideas and prejudices. But the big philosophical question of whether a deity - in some vague deistic sense where there is some creator who subsequently got out of the way - is one that I only answer that it seems extremely improbable and unnecessary but not strictly impossible. However, I don't think that there is anything meaningful that we can say about that, any more than we could about Russell's famous teapot orbiting the sun.

[PlayAlone64]

@Lenina

I'm from a liberal-progressive Jewish family (my dad was athest but did not reveal it to me until I had mentioned my atheism first) and I was born (and unfortunately, still live) in redneck, bible-thumping conservative Dallas, TX...where everything is socialism...where even the libertarians hate gays...where Christians use molotovs on abortion clinics...where corporations complain about "big gov't" but accept subsidies amd bailouts.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[PlayAlone64]

I do think it was my constant exposure to right wing, neo-moral majority nonsense.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[Revolution starts with U]

Strong Atheists are just as dumb as Strong Theists. We Atheists use the Scientific Method to prove our arguments (Genetics, Astrology, Geology, etc.), as we haven't a scientific argument yet to disprove the existence of a Metaphysical God, we cannot be 100% sure he does not exist. But we can be quite confident about it due to Religion being proved wrong time and time again.

So there can be no 100% Atheist with a true understanding of Theology and Science.

Naturalistic Pantheist De Facto Atheist here.


"De Facto Atheist", but I'd call it "Agnostic Atheist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)" because Agnosticism isn't a "middle-ground" belief, it's a statement about knowledge.

My general position is that I don't believe in deities but then again I doubt such a things' existence could be known anyway.

I would say these accurately represent my position. :lol:

[Weezer]

Post-theist.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I voted strong Theist; specifically apophatic Theism.

[Zav]

I chose de facto atheist because it's the default setting for humanity and because while I am an atheist as much as any other, I don't care for the most part if others are religious. Am I wrongly connecting strong atheism with militant atheism?

[PlayAlone64]

I'm not sure it's fair to give the same amount of merit to strong atheism and strong theism.

I am a strong disbeliever in Thor. I can and will say that the inexistence of Thor is a fact.
Does this make me a much of a fringe lunatic as someone who vehemently believes that he's met Thor and does his bidding for him?

Theism is not

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[PlayAlone64]

Theism is not exclusively Christian. You're only giving favor to theism in its current form.

There is the same lack of evidence and the same level of reasoning in being both a strong atheist and a strong a-unicornist.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[PlayAlone64]

@Zav

Strong atheism is basically saying that you're sure there no god.

A militant atheist is anyone that contradicts the right wing's religious views. It's whatever they want it to mean. If we ban creationism in public schools, it's militant atheism at work. If they murder an abortion doctor, lobby against a Muslim community center in NY, or shoot up a Scandanavian labour party meeting, everything is fine.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[PlayAlone64]

The right loves to link everything to Stalin. Liberals, atheists, feminists, socialists...all influenced by Soviet Russia, which according to Michele Bachmann is still on the rise. LMAO

Militant is just a pre-fix used to justify things. FARC is a militant Leninist organization while the Paramilitary fascists are radicals. Hugo Chavez is a militant revolutionary but our founding fathers were patriots.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[Dogs On Acid]

I'm not sure it's fair to give the same amount of merit to strong atheism and strong theism.

I am a strong disbeliever in Thor. I can and will say that the inexistence of Thor is a fact.
Does this make me a much of a fringe lunatic as someone who vehemently believes that he's met Thor and does his bidding for him?

Theism is not

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

And how are you so sure that Thor doesn't exist? Perhaps the monotheistic God Yahweh, is simply a collective of other Norse, Roman, Greek or Egyptian Gods.

[ComradeMan]

And how are you so sure that Thor doesn't exist? Perhaps the monotheistic God Yahweh, is simply a collective of other Norse, Roman, Greek or Egyptian Gods.

From a purely theological point of view you have to make the distinction betweent the revealed and non-revealed religions.

[ColonelCossack]

What about Theyism?

[ComradeMan]

What about Theyism?

It only has 8 followers and we'll have to wait until 3000 AD to know why- ;)

[Tjis]

I wasn't sure where some religions like Buddhism and Jainism would fit on this- so let's include them as "theisms" in the sense of they have a belief in a "supernatural".

I don't know about Jainism, but Buddhism is far closer to atheism than theism. Buddhist scripture categorically states that all of existence is impermanent. This leaves no room for an eternal god. Also, Buddhist scripture rejects the idea of a personal god controlling the universe. Various scriptures state that the material world is conditioned by the four classical elements (earth, water, fire and air). Rather than the actions of a divine being, it is the interaction of these elements that shapes the material world. (don't take those elements too literally though. The Buddha's audience was an Iron Age Vedic civilization, who believed that the material world consisted of the mentioned 4 elements plus a 5th divine primordial element from which the others originate. By stating that the material world consists of just the 4 elements the Buddha transformed the Vedic world view to a materialist one.)

While Buddhist scripture does mention various supernatural beings (devas, demons, ghosts..), it also states that all those beings are essentially in the same situation as humans. They are born, they age and eventually they die. They feel desire, aversion, and they suffer. Just like humans they are stuck in a cycle of rebirth where they are repeatedly reborn as humans, animals, devas, demons or any other possible form of existence. Worshiping any of them is as pointless as worshiping a human or an animal. There's nothing these beings can do for you. Only ones own actions can lead one to liberation, no being can save another.

None of these supernatural beings are gods as most people would understand the word. Buddhist belief in them is like belief in aliens. It is easy to assume that they must exist somewhere, even without directly meeting one. Existence is big after all. It's safe to assume there is a lot out there that we have not yet discovered, or that we don't yet comprehend completely, including forms of life fundamentally different from life on earth as we know it. But in daily practice this is completely irrelevant, because Buddhism is not about believing in these supernatural beings, or defining what they are like. Instead of concerning oneself with the nature of other beings, a Buddhist is expected to concern themselves with that which can be directly perceived: the various sensations that can be experienced at any time such as breath or feelings.

If atheism is just the lack of belief in god or gods, then Buddhism is certainly atheist. But if atheism means the rejection of anything that can't be empirically verified in a controlled environment then Buddhism is clearly not atheist. However that doesn't make it theist. A more accurate description for the Buddhist position is 'non-theist', since the religion simply isn't about god.

I voted Other.

[ComradeMan]

For the sake of a cool survey- I'd like the 500 or so regular posters to vote.

[eyeheartlenin]

I was wondering if there is any correlation between those who regard themselves as "strong atheists" or "strong anti-theists" and those who come from very strict religious families or grow up or live in a strict religious part of the world (such as the US South, parts of the Middle East or India).

Are strong atheists more prone to come from (for example) US "bible belt" states? ...

Could it be possible that reductionist, absolutist, intolerant fundamentalism breeds militant atheism?

In response to Lenina, that undoubtedly "glorious beacon of light" (a claim that makes me smile every time I see it, thanks, LR!), I would bet a paycheck (if I had a job) that a strict religious upbringing leads to de facto atheism later on; as one of the Hebrew prophets wrote, "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Jeremiah 31:29).

I am not attracted by atheism: between my sixtieth and sixty-first birthdays, I was bitten by a (small but vicious) dog and hit by a (slow-moving) car, and I am fine. Another time, a car jumped the curb and landed close enough to me to leave dirt on my pants leg, from the raised numbers on the car's tire. (I have witnesses, 3 atheists, one of whom was a comrade of mine in the WIL at the time, who saw that happen). Most recently, weeks ago, as I was walking home from downtown in a rainstorm, lightening struck the pavement a couple of yards in front of me (that's sure what it looked like, anyway), and I am fine. Because all that really happened, I would make a lousy atheist.

[eyeheartlenin]

I have no proof nor will I ever find any nor am I saying this is true but I like to think there is something out there , but if there is she/he/it is a major asshole

I think Aspiring Humanist's post is really funny, and it touches on the question of theodicy, the problem of innocent suffering, which I believe is the Achilles' heel of theism. And there sure is a lot of innocent suffering out there, when one looks around, so atheism (I hope this is not condescending to say) is completely understandable.

Please forgive my mastery of the obvious. Sometimes, it's the best I can do.

The idea of a lack of justice in God actually is a part of biblical literature. Almost every emotion can be found in the Psalms, and there are certainly Psalms which deplore innocent suffering and call God to account for it.

[ComradeMan]

I think Aspiring Humanist's post is really funny, and it touches on the question of theodicy, the problem of innocent suffering, which I believe is the Achilles' heel of theism. And there sure is a lot of innocent suffering out there, when one looks around, so atheism (I hope this is not condescending to say) is completely understandable.

Please forgive my mastery of the obvious. Sometimes, it's the best I can do.

The idea of a lack of justice in God actually is a part of biblical literature. Almost every emotion can be found in the Psalms, and there are certainly Psalms which deplore innocent suffering and call God to account for it.

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

The Hebrew word is "rah"- which could have alternative translations as "disaster", "calamity" and so on.

[ComradeMan]

Come on.... keep voting! :)

[Book O'Dead]

In matters of religion, faith, myth and superstition, I'm a Religious Revisionist. RR for short.

Also, I believe in God and love baby Jesus when I'm in trouble; And when I'm fine I'm an absolute bastard with God, willing to abort baby Jesus, put Mary in the whorehouse and Joseph as her jive-talking pimp. Otherwise I'm a pretty likable chap.

But when the going gets rough, and I can't cross all the rivers or see the white fucking cliffs of Dover, etc., Mother Mary comes to me, speaking words of wisdom, let it be...

Excuse me, I have to blow my nose...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

De facto atheist. While I cannot in all honesty bring myself to completely rule out the existence of beings we would consider god-like or perhaps even mistake for God/a god, I am certain to five nines that even if such beings exist, they will be nothing like anything imagined in human religions.


Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

The Hebrew word is "rah"- which could have alternative translations as "disaster", "calamity" and so on.

A god that created a universe this crappy is not a god worthy or deserving of worship.

[ComradeMan]

A god that created a universe this crappy is not a god worthy or deserving of worship.

Isn't that like saying the "world" is bad because there are earthquakes etc?

By what standard do you decide what is worthy or unworthy? By your own moral standard perhaps- and where does that originate?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I guess de-facto atheist because I don't really care about my disbelief in God anymore. When I first became an atheist it's like I wanted to shit on all the other religions and tell everybody how stupid their beliefs are. Now I don't think about it at all and don't really care what religion you might be. Maybe if somebody actually defined what these terms mean like "strong atheist" it would be better.

[eyeheartlenin]

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

The Hebrew word is "rah"- which could have alternative translations as "disaster", "calamity" and so on.

To respond to ComradeMan, this passage from Isaiah captures the enormous problem that theism has, in a world of hurt. The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) Tanakh translates Isaiah 45:6b-7 as follows:

I am the LORD and there is none else,
I form light and create darkness,
I make weal and create woe --
I the LORD do all these things.

So responsibility for innocent suffering, which surrounds us, which is ubiquitous in society, rests squarely on the shoulders of the Deity, because "there is none else," and all that makes atheism very understandable. In other words, religious faith is not for the fainthearted; it costs something to believe.

[PlayAlone64]

Strong atheist is basically the transition from the negative "I don't believe in god" to the positive "I believe there is no god." It's also claiming that the absence of god is essentially a fact...which it is. He's either not there or doesn't care.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Isn't that like saying the "world" is bad because there are earthquakes etc?

It's more than that. The very process of evolution needs death and pain to work. 99.99% of the universe's volume is filled with either crushingly dense superhot plasma, or a cold and breathless vacuum. Simply by living I am killing and displacing other beings. The universe contains tyrants who die peacefully and good men who die young, and thus appears to completely lack any kind of inherent justice system, so we have to make do with whatever we can come up with.

Then there's the whole "communication" problem. Humans worship and have worshipped countless different gods, many with contradictory qualities and edicts. This doesn't sound like an optimal solution at all, at least if the Creator's intentions are remotely benevolent, rather than indifferent or actively hostile.

And if the Creator, should they exist, turns out to care not for us or even hate us, what would the point of worship be?


By what standard do you decide what is worthy or unworthy? By your own moral standard perhaps- and where does that originate?

Some combination of the cultures I've been exposed to and my own thoughts on the matter, I imagine. But why should that matter?

[bcbm]

strong atheist. i am certain there is no god

[RichardAWilson]

Agnosticism bordering on Atheism.

[DarkPast]

Non-theism, for the same reason as Tjis said.

[Per Levy]

strong atheist, but in secret i worship cthulhu.

[ColonelCossack]

strong atheist, but in secret i worship cthulhu.

Cthulu, Cthulu, banish your friends to obliv-i-ion with CTHULU!!!!!!!

[ColonelCossack]

atheist leaning towards agnosticism...:thumbup1:

if that's even possible...
In theory, i think that its impossible ever to know if there is/isn't some kind of supreme deity, but I think the probability against such a thing existing is huge.

[ComradeMan]

atheist leaning towards agnosticism...:thumbup1:

if that's even possible...
In theory, i think that its impossible ever to know if there is/isn't some kind of supreme deity, but I think the probability against such a thing existing is huge.

Out of curiousity what is that probability against?
:confused:

[PlayAlone64]

Everyone is agnostic so that isn't a real position. If you are not a theist, that makes atheistic, therefore, an atheist. Remember nontheism is the refusal to accept a claim, not a claim itself.

Sent from my PantechP8000 using Tapatalk