# Why is this site overwhelmingly atheist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2014, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938 "2014-08-30T04:04:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/101 "2014-09-02T14:37:00Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The OP probably considers agnostics as being atheists as well. Add them in and you get up around 62%. Of course, he may consider anyone who isn’t an avid bible thumper to be an atheist, in which case the poll shows that only 13% of the respondents are devout theists and the remaining 87% are all heathens. It doesn’t matter what the OP considers( which is just speculation on your part), because that doesn’t change the results of the poll itself. So far, the results are: Strong atheist- 29.68% Casual atheist- 23.23% Agnostic- 9.68% Devout theist- 12.90% Casual theist- 10.97% Pantheist- 1.29% Animist- 0.65% “Spiritual but not religious”- 3.23% ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/102 "2014-09-02T15:42:04Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Don’t presume to speak for me, please. > > If I had thought they were the same, I wouldn’t have had separate categories. I believe he was speaking to the OP of this thread - reefshark - and not you. ---
**Author:** ![SeldomSeen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ba0ec/32.png) [@SeldomSeen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SeldomSeen)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/103 "2014-09-02T15:43:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by\*\* Knorf\*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **Clothahump** ; > > The OP probably considers agnostics as being atheists as well. Add them in and you get up around 62%. Of course, he may consider anyone who isn’t an avid bible thumper to be an atheist, in which case the poll shows that only 13% of the respondents are devout theists and the remaining 87% are all heathens. > > Don’t presume to speak for me, please. > > If I had thought they were the same, I wouldn’t have had separate categories. I think **Clothahump** was referring to the OP of _this_ thread - the absent Shark. And he’s correct. The fundy/evangelical crowd views anyone not of their persuasion as “atheist”. It’s their current hateword. eta: yeah, what **simster** said ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/104 "2014-09-02T15:48:20Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Read the City of God by Augustine. He says; It is impossible for the earth to be round. I have and he doesn’t. He says in the book that just because the Earth is round, doesn’t mean that there’s land in the rest of it or that people live there. (Back then, the common scientific belief was that it was physically impossible to cross hemispheres. He’s responding to the arguments that, if the earth is round, the people in the other parts of the Earth couldn’t be descended from Noah as well as the argument that the people in the other quadrants would be necessarily damned because missionaries would never be able to get there. He’s defending the idea of a round earth, not attacking it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/105 "2014-09-02T16:18:21Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I’d just like the OP to explain in what way the Big Bang Theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. Something to do with its seven-season run? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/106 "2014-09-02T16:24:44Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Something to do with its seven-season run? I thought that proved entropy? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/107 "2014-09-02T17:11:33Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Back then, the common scientific belief was that it was physically impossible to cross hemispheres. I’m curious - what was their figuring for why that was? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/108 "2014-09-02T17:41:55Z")
> [@SeldomSeen](#): > > I think **Clothahump** was referring to the OP of _this_ thread - the absent Shark. And he’s correct. The fundy/evangelical crowd views anyone not of their persuasion as “atheist”. It’s their current hateword. Egad, you’re right. I thought I was posting in the other thread, somehow. I’ll go stand in the “I’ve been duly corrected corner.” ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/109 "2014-09-02T17:42:28Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I have and he doesn’t. He says in the book that just because the Earth is round, doesn’t mean that there’s land in the rest of it or that people live there. (Back then, the common scientific belief was that it was physically impossible to cross hemispheres. He’s responding to the arguments that, if the earth is round, the people in the other parts of the Earth couldn’t be descended from Noah as well as the argument that the people in the other quadrants would be necessarily damned because missionaries would never be able to get there. He’s defending the idea of a round earth, not attacking it. Dante put the mountain of Purgatory opposite to Jerusalem on a spherical earth. I don’t recall anything about the impossibility of getting there. But who would want to? The shadow from that thing would just ruin the property values. Makes the eyesore of Trump Tower look like a pile of a child’s blocks. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/110 "2014-09-02T18:20:15Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m curious - what was their figuring for why that was? I can’t find a cite at the moment, but as I recall, the heat of the equatorial region was believed to be completely impassable. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/111 "2014-09-02T20:27:34Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > I can’t find a cite at the moment, but as I recall, the heat of the equatorial region was believed to be completely impassable. Like it got warmer as you went farther south, and they extrapolated that data so that it got hotter still going farther south? They knew that people lived at the equator, didn’t they? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/112 "2014-09-02T20:42:36Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Like it got warmer as you went farther south, and they extrapolated that data so that it got hotter still going farther south? Yep. > [@CurtC](#): > > They knew that people lived at the equator, didn’t they? I don’t think so - for quite a while, all they knew was that when people traveled toward the equator, it got more and more unpleasant (in Africa, of course, it was desert) Here’s a cite about an early Common Era Roman geographer who believed that the equator was impassable [Pomponius Mela - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomponius_Mela) “The general views of the De situ orbis mainly agree with those current among Greek writers from Eratosthenes to Strabo; the latter was probably unknown to Mela. But Pomponius is unique among ancient geographers in that, after dividing the earth into five zones, of which two only were habitable, he asserts the existence of antichthones, inhabiting the southern temperate zone inaccessible to the folk of the northern temperate regions from the unbearable heat of the intervening torrid belt.” ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2014, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/113 "2014-09-02T23:59:18Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > then it is time to drop the snark outside of the pit. > > … > > If we are about being sarcastic assholes who revel in how much smarter than other people we fondly believe ourselves to be, then it is time to quit bullshitting ourselves that we have any other purpose. There’s quite a bit of hypocrisy in this post, given that your criticism is directed at other posters in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Clifster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4af34b/32.png) [@Clifster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clifster)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/114 "2014-09-04T10:55:27Z")
I give you two people who matter in this debate - I defy any creationist to logically recant the arguments made by Christopher Hitchens (plenty of debates on you-tube) or Richard Dawkins. These people are not fools nor are they illogical like many of their debated opponents. Nobody with any brain whatsoever (who has not been completely brainwashed) could possibly argue having seen debates with either of these people against religious proponents could contend with any credibility that creation has any credibility whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/115 "2014-09-04T12:37:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Ah, yes-suddenly speaking of “Existence” as if it were an entity instead of the physical state of being, which is the common definition of the word. > > EXISTENCE: noun- the state or fact of existing; being. True, so existence had to be the first thing, what isn’t in existence isn’t existing. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/116 "2014-09-04T12:41:02Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > monavis, > > No. Here are some citations: > > [Welcome creationtips.com - Hostmonster.com](http://www.creationtips.com/flatearth.html) > > [Tektonics.org Bible apologetics and education](http://www.tektonics.org/af/bogusq.php) > > Quote for me the exact passage in _The City of God_ which makes you think that Augustine believed that the world was flat. I would have to re-read the entire book to see the quote but if you read it yourself you can find the passage. I was amazed when I read it. ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/117 "2014-09-04T12:41:23Z")
Not much time for SD these days, so just did a brief scan, and not sure if this [poll](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=533099) by **TWduke** has been shown. It was done in 2009, and has a larger sampling of Dopers on their religious beliefs or the lack of it. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/118 "2014-09-04T12:43:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The problem with this argument is that it means…nothing can possibly exist. > > You’ve defined “reality” as being self-contradictory. > > Since we know there is such a thing as reality, the definition is patently flawed. > > Again: God might be the universe. He isn’t “in” it: he “is” it. That is one possible exception to your argument about “having a place to exist” and, all by itself, invalidates your supposition. > > (I do not endorse that view, I hasten to add. I’m an atheist, and consider any talk about God to be meaningless. But it is not automatically invalid on the kind of definitional grounds you’re attempting to construct.) > > (I also hasten to add that I bear you no ill will, and that I am not stalking you, hounding you, or belittling you. I think you’re wrong, is all, and when you say something like that, I will respond. I beg you not to consider this in any way an indication of personal disrespect. You say “n is prime” and I say “n is composite” and there really isn’t any way for either of us to prove our contention.) I don’t see why God has to be the universe, God is invisible so couldn’t be that the universe it has to exist first. and since we know it exists we know it is in existence. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/119 "2014-09-04T12:50:56Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I would have to re-read the entire book to see the quote but if you read it yourself you can find the passage. I was amazed when I read it. Is this the passage you have in mind [Philip Schaff: NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVI.9.html) "Chapter 9.—Whether We are to Believe in the Antipodes. But as to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the concavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other: hence they say that the part which is beneath must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that, although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. " ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938/120 "2014-09-04T20:31:10Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I don’t see why God has to be the universe . . . I didn’t say God has to be the universe. I said that God might be the universe. It’s one possibility among a very great many. That specific possibility refutes your contention that God couldn’t create the universe because God needs “some place” to be. If God is that place, your claim fails. All I’m saying is that the specific formula you have recited, not once but several times, simply does not function. It’s a semantic dodge, without real meaning. It can, with equal facility, prove that the Big Bang couldn’t have happened. Again, please, no offense. I actually do agree with most of what you say. It’s just that one specific formulaic contention that I think is completely wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-site-overwhelmingly-atheist/696938.md?page=7)