I saw the name, and knew immediately that Sansa's reply would have nothing to do with the topic save using it as a springboard to be offended about one of her pet issues.

Atheism has no direct stigma. Nor is it, as asserted before, about denying an alternative viewpoint as such. Atheism has no dogma, no tenets, no rules beyond "Take the position that god does not exist."

It is entirely possible, and preferable, to therefore allow your opinion the possibility of change while still taking the solid position.


To my knowledge, logically, the majority of atheists simply adopt the position that the various competing religious belief systems construct potential realities for themselves that are unrealistic and incredibly unlikely.

Having reached this point of argument, as an atheist I take the further position that the historical failure of ALL religions save those still practiced, points towards the existence of a higher power being unlikely. Until proof is presented to the contrary I will therefore posit that religious belief is flawed and that god does not exist.

Unlike any other belief system, atheism does allow itself the possibility of being wrong - it simply asks for is initial position, the null state where the inexplicable is not blindly assumed to exist - to be disproven.

The stigma comes from people being *******s and/or poor debaters around this fact, along with the self interests of religious institutions to discredit our position in lieu of being able to disprove it.

The stigma comes from militant atheists that are similar to radical Christians(IE. Westboros) in the sense that a handful of the group make the rest of the entire ideology look bad.

Some people just decide to take at face value what is always thrown in their face by the loud minority.

A perfect metaphor wasn't the point. The point was that people who are already prejudiced against a group will often take offense at the very sight of that which they disagree with.

It seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy, because the stigma could exists from non-atheists being called out as *******s. I would like to see a scientific inquiry to provide statical information maybe even a Venn Diagram to clarify at what percentage they are truly being *******s.

Do you feel like people are being *******s to Sansa? I am not choosing sides, and picking who is right and who is wrong in this matter, but in the manner it was handled, it seem like being a little *******-ery the way Sansa's response was replied to, no?...could I be wrong?

For your point to make sense she would have had to, as a theist, attack atheism, and we would have then had to respond in a confrontational manner. She did not attack atheism, and we did not attack anybody's position as a theist. She came in with a confrontational, off-topic post and was called on it without any name-calling. I don't see how we're being *******s.

FTFY.

Anyway, to expand my point slightly - Atheism provides no reason to deny yourself the opportunity to change faiths. There is no directive in atheism that says you shouldn't simply decide one day that you've been wrong, and go adopt a faith.

This stands in stark contrast to every other religious system ever to exist, which all state that leaving the religion will result in some form or variant of divine punishment, either before or after death.

your constant and creepily persistent hate boner for me rivals that of dirty lmao


either way if you want to really know why atheists are hated, it's much like vegans. you're not any better than anyone else and if you use such a stupid thing to feel superior to people you are probably.... nah you gross doe

And for your second post in the thread, you've still managed to not actually be on topic.

I said my piece and I'm pleased with it. now kindly hop off my ****ing dick for once in your life

You'd think that if it weren't for you repeating it in every other post, we'd actually forget how pleased with yourself you are.