Poll: To atheists:What kind are you?

[Kollega]

For all i know,there could be some god-esque entity out there. I can't prove or disprove it. I'm kind of like Einstein in this question.

 

[Cakes]

I disagree that most religion is harmless, rather I think almost all religions are directly harmful in multiple ways.

To quote Ghandi: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

If you see a religion being harmful, it's likely because the members of said religion are likely twisting it to suit their purposes, or the religion is itself harmful by nature (Satanism.) All other things tend to be propaganda.

The actual religion of Satanism is just Libertarianism packaged as an "edgy" religion to attract teens to the political ideology.

That's LaVeyan satanism, yeah. But then there's Theistic Satanism, which is a different matter entirely.

Ahhh, yes. I find it hilarious though, they worship the devil from the Abrahamic set of beliefs, yet the only texts for that religion all make it clear that god dom's the devil, and lets him exist only to further his plans. Why worship the ultimate loser in that set of beliefs?

It varies greatly, but for many it's just the opinion that God is an evil fuck (he is pretty mean in the Old Testament, and this is a God that says "worship me or burn in hell") and that opposition to this God is the right thing, and since god is so mean as shit the Bible can't be taken completely seriously.

 

[scotth266]

The actual religion of Satanism is just Libertarianism packaged as an "edgy" religion to attract teens to the political ideology.

That's where you lost me. I don't think you have a particularly good understanding of what "Satanism" is, so please don't judge it.

Actually, that was my bad. I forgot that there are several different types of Satanism, with various ideals: I was referring in my post to people like those grave-robbers from the Spawn movie. As in, people who worship a deity or devil with thoroughly malicious beliefs. The Westboro Baptist Church would also fit into this category.

 

[riskroWe]

I'm a gnostic atheist, and I am quiet about it.

I'm willing to discuss ethics and philosophy, but god is such a simple, meaningless question. It deserves none of my attention.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Here's a good factual thing that happened. Imagine that I am in a room with a child, a small male baby. During this time I cut his penis and suck upon it. Morally what would you say to that?

Now wait, my friend, for I am a Jewish mohel doing a spiritual rite that goes back centuries. I am protected from any punishment for these events, even if (as happened to multiple babies in New York) I spread a sexually transmitted disease to these children.

Don't agree with that, it's a ridiculous practice.

How about the Catholic Priests that molested children and got away with it completely? Did you even find out that Bush pardoned the pope? The same pope who wrote into the countracts of bishops, archbishops, and priests that they must keep quiet about the things that may make the church look bad? All completely provable, yet ignored because it's such a hassel to speak out on these things. Was this in the news, or was it left out to avoid 'backlash'?

Have you been watching Penn and Teller? I think you have. I agree, the Vatican is evil as fuck. You, however, seem to think they represent the whole damn religion.

A ridiculous practice? Sir, you offend me! This is prejudice! Religious persecution! *splashes holy water onto thee*

I read the Bible completely, taking it all literally shows the immense immorality that could be spread to the world from faith. Islam has apostacy, Scientology has SP's, etc etc etc.

 

[Cakes]

Understood, however I disagree. People pick-and-choose from their religious texts. I find that to just be insane. Why believe in this but ignore the other?

Many religious groups have accepted that their Holy Texts largely consist of rules from an ancient time, and should no longer be accepted in the modern world. What's wrong with that?

Why preach against homosexuals but not against women wearing pants?

Again, you seem to be of the opinion that most religious types are gay-haters, which is not the case.

*shrugs* People aren't twisting religion, they're following it more closely to the T. The asshole Westboro Group actually take the Bible quite literally. Not extremists, but literalists.

An example of why the bible shouldn't be taken literally. I'm also pretty sure Fred Phelps is one of three things:
a) An attention whore, who doesn't really believe the things he says
b) Mentally ill
c) Plain old asshole

 

[Cliff_m85]

The actual religion of Satanism is just Libertarianism packaged as an "edgy" religion to attract teens to the political ideology.

That's where you lost me. I don't think you have a particularly good understanding of what "Satanism" is, so please don't judge it.

Actually, that was my bad. I forgot that there are several different types of Satanism, with various ideals: I was referring in my post to people like those grave-robbers from the Spawn movie. As in, people who worship a deity or devil with thoroughly malicious beliefs. The Westboro Baptist Church would also fit into this category.

Say what you will about the Westboro people, atleast they have the cohones to actually believe a ton of the Bible. They still do pick-and-choose, but not nearly as much as most American Christians. That makes me respect them just a bit more than other Christians.

 

[tangylaser]

im a nice person idc what your religion is but ill respect that, most of the time of course if ur hardcore christian then ill have to tell u all the reasons god is not real sorry but its who i am

 

[Cakes]

Penn and Teller only scratched the surface of what is there today. You want REAL dirt, read up on their affairs during the Classical, Medieval, and Renaissance times.

I'm perfectly aware of the mean shit the Catholic Church has done in their time, yeah. It's just the "all Catholics are douchebags 'cuz the vatican" thing that bothers me. I'm pretty sure I'm still considered Catholic, actually. I was baptized and all that. I've eaten my fair share of zombie carpenter. I'm basically guaranteed salvation is what I'm saying.

 

[scotth266]

Understood, however I disagree. People pick-and-choose from their religious texts. I find that to just be insane. Why believe in this but ignore the other? Why preach against homosexuals but not against women wearing pants? *shrugs* People aren't twisting religion, they're following it more closely to the T. The asshole Westboro Group actually take the Bible quite literally. Not extremists, but literalists.

You're assuming that the Bible is meant to be taken literally at all points. Which it isn't.

I mean, the Creation story has been proven wrong through science, so what are we meant to take from it? A whole load of symbolism and religious subtext, actually. It's like that for most of the Bible.

And besides, the Catholic Church doesn't preach against homosexuals, just homosexual sex. Your ideas seem to rest upon the conclusion that faith is immutable. It is not: see the Vatican Councils. As time progresses, people begin to look at different religious texts with new eyes, developing ideas and changing the faith to catch up to the progressions of the world.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Understood, however I disagree. People pick-and-choose from their religious texts. I find that to just be insane. Why believe in this but ignore the other?

Many religious groups have accepted that their Holy Texts largely consist of rules from an ancient time, and should no longer be accepted in the modern world. What's wrong with that?

Why preach against homosexuals but not against women wearing pants?

Again, you seem to be of the opinion that most religious types are gay-haters, which is not the case.

*shrugs* People aren't twisting religion, they're following it more closely to the T. The asshole Westboro Group actually take the Bible quite literally. Not extremists, but literalists.

An example of why the bible shouldn't be taken literally. I'm also pretty sure Fred Phelps is one of three things:
a) An attention whore, who doesn't really believe the things he says
b) Mentally ill
c) Plain old asshole

What's wrong with people just randomly deciding which rules to not follow? That it's random. That they pick-and-choose their rules to follow. Whatever is convenient and fits into my schedule and life-style is the mantra. Believe it all or believe none of it, I say (albeit the rules that were literally told to be discarded).

Most religious types aren't gay haters, though Christians and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and (so on so on so on) should be. Their books are clearly state to murder those who have homosexual sex. So no, most religious types aren't gay haters, they are just pickers-and-choosers.

Even if Freddy is an attention whore, how do you explain his congregation? And mentally ill I'd agree with, though kindly bite my tongue for further references to why he is. Yes, he is an asshole though. I agree completely with that.

 

[Cakes]

Say what you will about the Westboro people, atleast they have the cohones to actually believe a ton of the Bible. They still do pick-and-choose, but not nearly as much as most American Christians. That makes me respect them just a bit more than other Christians.

Seriously, what the hell man? You seem to think taking everything literally and practicing extremism is the only way of practicing a religion, then point at them and say "Ha! Look how silly they are!"

 

[-=Spy=-]

I'm an anti-theist. I'm not going to stand up and say religion is dumb unless it's being forced on me or if it's being outspokenly stupid, which happens to be most of the time. I have friends with religious beliefs, but they respect me enough to leave me alone about it. If they ask me questions about my lack of belief then I feel it fair to question theirs, which I have at certain times. I've deconverted most of them though a few still hang on for personal reasons.

How can you not speak out when someone is calling for the death of a cartoonist for drawing? How can you not speak out when your professor is blathering nonscience and you're paying to learn actual science?
How can you not speak out when someone uses archiac texts to put down homosexuals?


*shrugs*

Quoted for agreement.

 

[fletch_talon]

By now I have learned that many Escapists are atheists. This is coming from a Christian, but what 'kind' of atheist are you? Do you have friends with beliefs, or do you stand on a soap box and yell 'Religion is dumb'? Sorry if I didn't get the 'soap box' term right, I heard my dad say it once and I think I heard him wrong. I just want to know what type of people I may deal with in religious threads in the future.

Just btw I'm not really uptight. My best girl friend is an atheist. I was raised Catholic, I still am, but I don't agree with some ideas, probably more to come. I also sometimes (try to) think about the universe without a God, sometimes it doesn't fase me.

There's something I'm hoping you might be able to tell me. I have a couple of internet friends who are "Catholic" but disagree with some ideas. In their case, they don't agree with the "homosexuality is wrong" thing.
My question is essentially this: why label yourself a Catholic, when there are things you disagree with in the Catholic belief system. It doesn't make sense to me, I don't consider myself a member of PETA, because even though I think animals deserve better treatment, I don't believe we should stop eating animal products entirely.

The reason I'm asking you instead of them by the way is that in the past they have recieved the false impression that I am anti-theist, whereas at worst I'm anti-"organised"theism. As such any attempt to ask this of them could be taken the wrong way.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I challenge beliefs contrary to mine, and that includes superstition and unfounded creation stories. I especially challenge those who believe that religion is the basis for, or even helpful to morality or justice, and those who believe that morality either has or would benefit from an objective foundation. Basically I'm a material reductionist, and ethical non-cognitivist. That means that I think every existent phenomena is reducible to facts of the physical, material world and that ethics is firmly in the "opinions of humans" (rather than unalterable fact) category. I also think that normal ethical inquiry shouldn't change much because of non-cognitivism: I reject naive ethical nihilism. I think ethics is more like art than it is like science.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Understood, however I disagree. People pick-and-choose from their religious texts. I find that to just be insane. Why believe in this but ignore the other? Why preach against homosexuals but not against women wearing pants? *shrugs* People aren't twisting religion, they're following it more closely to the T. The asshole Westboro Group actually take the Bible quite literally. Not extremists, but literalists.

You're assuming that the Bible is meant to be taken literally at all points. Which it isn't.

I mean, the Creation story has been proven wrong through science, so what are we meant to take from it? A whole load of symbolism and religious subtext, actually. It's like that for most of the Bible.

And besides, the Catholic Church doesn't preach against homosexuals, just homosexual sex. Your ideas seem to rest upon the conclusion that faith is immutable. It is not: see the Vatican Councils. As time progresses, people begin to look at different religious texts with new eyes, developing ideas and changing the faith to catch up to the progressions of the world.

In the past those that debunked portions of the Bible were thrown in jail. Now we just get apologetics to re-read it and streeeeeeeeeetch what the possible 'symbolism' could be. Who decides what is symbolism and what is reality? Noahs ark was disproved, so now it's symbolic. What of Jesus coming back to life? Oh, that's real. *shrugs* I don't get it. It wasn't symbolic until after it was debunked fully. People literally believed the literal text. People still shout out about Adam and Eve (not Adam and Steve). It's whatever is the most convenient at the time, I think.

Right, not homosexuals but homosexual sex. *rolls eyes* Hey guys, we hate the sin and not the sinner......can you please stay unhappy for the rest of your life? What's that? That the sin is a part of who you are? *mind explodes*

 

[Cakes]

What's wrong with people just randomly deciding which rules to not follow? That it's random. That they pick-and-choose their rules to follow. Whatever is convenient and fits into my schedule and life-style is the mantra.

It's not random, it's based on "Okay, these rules are no longer applicable in modern society, so we'll not be pricks and recognize them as such."

Believe it all or believe none of it, I say (albeit the rules that were literally told to be discarded).

You've pushed the Religious into a corner, where either they're not religious at all, or extremists. Does this really sound fair or logical to you?

Most religious types aren't gay haters, though Christians and Jews and Muslims and Mormons and (so on so on so on) should be. Their books are clearly state to murder those who have homosexual sex. So no, most religious types aren't gay haters, they are just pickers-and-choosers.

Personal interpretation, rules no longer applicable, etc.

Even if Freddy is an attention whore, how do you explain his congregation? And mentally ill I'd agree with, though kindly bite my tongue for further references to why he is. Yes, he is an asshole though. I agree completely with that.

His congregation is mostly close-family. The whole mentally ill thing, I wasn't just kidding with that. I think he may seriously have a problem. He's created this reality where he is the only holy man on earth, practically a demi-god, and that everyone will burn in hell while he parties it up with Jesus.

 

[scotth266]

My question is essentially this: why label yourself a Catholic, when there are things you disagree with in the Catholic belief system. It doesn't make sense to me, I don't consider myself a member of PETA, because even though I think animals deserve better treatment, I don't believe we should stop eating animal products entirely.

Actually, there's a simple answer for that question: they want to change the faith.

It's happened before, and I'm sure that it will happen again, likely within the next two popes.

 

[Nemorov]

Believe what you want to believe... just stay off my lawn and I'll stay off yours.

 

[Cakes]

There's something I'm hoping you might be able to tell me. I have a couple of internet friends who are "Catholic" but disagree with some ideas. In their case, they don't agree with the "homosexuality is wrong" thing.
My question is essentially this: why label yourself a Catholic, when there are things you disagree with in the Catholic belief system.

Mostly, they consider the issues they disagree with minor enough to ignore, and since they've already been raised Catholic, why go through the bother of conversion?

Edit: Or what that other guy said.