The Atheism Poll

[Dovey]

SPELLING

AUGH

that's just C'thulu as pronounced by James Hetfield



C'THULUGGGHHHH

[Dovey]

As evidenced by Marsupialized' post, there are those who will tell you there are no gods. No chance. Mind: Closed. This is your true atheist.

Or that's just 'sup being 'sup- Over-the-top hyperbole for entertainment's sake. You find me one atheist* who, if actually presented with testable proof about the existence of a deity- say, if YHWH himself appeared in the clouds before said atheist to say what's up- would still deny the existence of said deity.

It's not close-minded to not devote any large amount of brainspace to the very, very, vanishingly slim chance that there might just be a kind of amorphous force that is responsible for existence, no more than it is to not waste your time postulating on the existence of unicorns or hobbits.



*caveat: over the age of 21- nobody cares what you think, high-school-kid-who-thinks-calling-all-religions-bullshit-is-edgy.

[steve]

The idea that no matter what, redemption can be found by anyone, is pretty powerful.

Only if predicated on the notion that we are all horrible sinners who need redemption. That's a disgusting notion that flies in the face of normal human experience, wherein we all meet lovely people all the time.

[enframed]

I am not pompous enough to think I know the unknowable.

This option really needs to be added as it's the most logical. "Soft atheism" I think it's called.

[Dovey]

Nope, it's just atheism! Thanks for playing.

[Antero]

The idea that no matter what, redemption can be found by anyone, is pretty powerful.

Only if predicated on the notion that we are all horrible sinners who need redemption. That's a disgusting notion that flies in the face of normal human experience, wherein we all meet lovely people all the time.

What if it's phrased not as "horrible sinners" but simply imperfect human beings? I think your rhetorical interpretation might be excessive. Lovely people, after all, are flawed as well.

I am not pompous enough to think I know the unknowable.

This option really needs to be added as it's the most logical. "Soft atheism" I think it's called.

That's bullshit, though. We're not talking about the unknowable; we are, in fact, talking about something that is quite knowable indeed, right up until it dissolves into Harry Potter imaginings.

That "knowing the unknowable" stuff is logical in the same way it one might say that, hypothetically, it is possible that there is another planet of similar size and climate as earth, on which an intelligent life form has evolved, and they also have Pringles. It's at the bleeding edge of conceptual possibility, yes. It's not reality. The entire world could be saturated with fairies, invisible creatures with no mass and no measurable interaction with the physical realm. But that's just making shit up. &c.

[numberthirty]

What if it's phrased not as "horrible sinners" but simply imperfect human beings? I think your rhetorical interpretation might be excessive. Lovely people, after all, are flawed as well.

Isn't there still original sin making us all horrible sinners right out of the gate?

[Ernest]

The idea that no matter what, redemption can be found by anyone, is pretty powerful.

Only if predicated on the notion that we are all horrible sinners who need redemption. That's a disgusting notion that flies in the face of normal human experience, wherein we all meet lovely people all the time.

It's not necessarily "original sin" territory, but the idea of humans as being imperfect through free will. We're all flawed, no matter how lovely we are. I think the obsession with redemption is really the guilt one feels, in whatever sense, big or small, for something.

No matter the pain, the suffering, that God can grant you everlasting sanctuary, is huge, to me. I can't explain it.

[numberthirty]

No matter the pain, the suffering, that God can grant you everlasting sanctuary, is huge, to me. I can't explain it.

If you ever see a game of three card monte, you keep on walking.

[simmo]

I would define myself as an Atheist. I'd like to say I'm 100% sure about this but actually I'm 100% sure of almost nothing. And also, due to indoctrination from birth I am doomed to be plagued by the occasional fit of doubt.

Thanks for that, ma and pa.

[steve]

The idea that no matter what, redemption can be found by anyone, is pretty powerful.

Only if predicated on the notion that we are all horrible sinners who need redemption. That's a disgusting notion that flies in the face of normal human experience, wherein we all meet lovely people all the time.

What if it's phrased not as "horrible sinners" but simply imperfect human beings? I think your rhetorical interpretation might be excessive. Lovely people, after all, are flawed as well.

Merely flawed people are not in need of redemption. I can accept imperfect people and appreciate them as they are.

This whole notion that people are soiled somehow for having normal human weaknesses is cancerous. It creates unnecessary guilt and enshrines both self-hatred and a judgmental mentality as ordained and elevated states.

Fuck all that, it's evil. Love people as they are. You don't need a religion to redeem your existence if you appreciate your existence as the wonder it is.

[steve]

No matter the pain, the suffering, that God can grant you everlasting sanctuary, is huge, to me. I can't explain it.

If people are genuinely in pain and genuinely suffering, is it not cruelty to tell them to put up with it until after they die? Isn't that just a lazy way of avoiding making peoples' lives better while they're alive to enjoy it?

The notion of redemption presumes we are bad for no reason, or that our suffering is all our fault. When I hear that, that's an asshole talking.

[ImDADA]

I'm an athiest in as far as I don't believe in any particular God or religion.

God could be real though, I don't know a fucking thing.

[Cranius]

The idea that we're born with a debt to god that we need to dutifully redeem, isn't a particularly pleasant one. Obviously, lots of different societies try and sell this idea.

[Luzwei]

The notion of redemption presumes we are bad for no reason, or that our suffering is all our fault. When I hear that, that's an asshole talking.

The idea of redemption is that we are BORN bad. That's the more disturbing thing for me. We are born with the Original sin and we have to seek redemption throughout our whole life. How can a little, beautiful, cute baby be full of sins? I'm disgusted by that notion.



And Atheist. And I'm not even interested in the existence of any possible god out there. Something like that does not exist in my mind. Not that I need proof of such thing but if the proof was still out there I would not endorse the occult idea of worshiping anything that is group, unconditional and cannot be reassessed for discussion.

[circle_ruler]

for around 200,000 years Homo sapiens has been using practical natural magic as its religion - belief in spirits, stone worship etc. you can trace the history of religion from this through polytheism into monotheism, from practical magic aimed at improving the lives of the practitioners to the magic of mass control.

at all points it seems to me that religion is the anthropomorphisation of nature and it flows from our need to understand and control natural forces, and latterly people. in terms of being a way to truly understand nature religion is a little lacking and is therefore a dead end, and at worst is a deliberate obfuscation of the truth. (aha! but what is truth? is there such a thing as an objective, universal truth? to which i respond, fuck off, i'm in admin not philosophy).

i'd also argue that from an ignorant but entirely rational root way back in prehistory religion has become increasingly irrational in our enlightened times, a thin veneer of ideology used to confuse and distort, justify property relations to the benefit of the wealthy, divide the poor against themselves, and act as a brake on human progress.

but, you know, 200,000 years of human society can't be wrong. oh i'm torn...

just kidding. i'll be an atheist right up until the last few minutes of my life when irrational fear of eternal torment will fuck with my mind. nurse! more morphia!

[Luzwei]

just kidding. i'll be an atheist right up until the last few minutes of my life when irrational fear of eternal torment will fuck with my mind. nurse! more morphia!

Although I'm fairly young and have surely another 100 years of my life to live, I'm very much thinking sometimes about that exact moment and I don't know how to play it in my mind. It's just the fear that gets to you and you try to counter fight it. And yeah, I wanna go with the smile on my face.

MOAR MORF!!!

[Marsupialized]

Nobody can explain to me why the idea of a 'God' existing should be even discussed, let alone considered in the realm of some sort of possibility. Out of all the silly things and stories dreamed up out of thin air by humans, that one is to be taken seriously and actually debated by rational people? It is outrageous for someone NOT to? Why, exactly?
Just because?

[Luzwei]

Because, it's about money in the end. Everything about the money should be discussed. It's because it surely is one of if not the biggest scam in the history of the human race. And yet 2 bil of "us" believe in it. That's worthy of discussing as well. I can't separate one from the other.

[whoisalhedges]

Can you source an English definition of the word that states this?

OED good enough for you?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... tions.html

Two definitions, first "disbelief in," second "denial of." Disbelief includes denial as a subset, Denial is more limiting.

I believe there are no gods. I positively affirm that there is no rational basis for belief in gods. There is a vast gulf there.