Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Forum Demographics

67 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
Wolf in Sheep's Clothing - Forum Demographics

Out of idle curiosity, what percentage of members of this forum are atheists and how many are like me, Christian, but showing up here because only atheists hold religious debates?

The religious surveys even say so, If you ask most 'religious' people about their faith, they are clue less. The most religiously informed group is the atheists.

It is also one of the reasons I like the New York Times. They also have great religious/ moral editorials and articles.

I am NOT talking about the - I belong to the magic group that means I get to kill people debates you find on a lot of 'religious' sites.

I confess to being an equal opportunity troll. I post anywhere I think I can get someone to listen to help stop pedophilia and penis worship.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

chimp3's picture
I don't believe anyone has

I don't believe anyone has made a count of atheists vs. believers. There are a few believers that stick around and routinely engage in debate. Some are drive by posters. One post to preach and never return. Some, like our recent friend Ryan, post for a few days then leave. It is hard getting your ass handed back to you on a silver platter, I understand.

Penis worship! Yes! I would love to live long enough to see a world ruled by those with xx chromosomes for a few centuries. I do believe it would be a better place.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
Rule by XX - not necessarily.

Rule by XX - not necessarily. I remember in college. The girls were more frightened of the women bullies than the men. Men it is more often a dominance 'game and thought out.' With the women it was MEANT.

You male or female?

Penis worship is now the official position of the vatican post Benne Dick. Before they didn't have the self confidence to be so blatant to go world wide. The special status of the priest in Catholicism is as the "representative of Christ" Benne Dick's comparison of pedophiles with women who want to be priests effectively shown a world wide spot light on the vatican vision of Christ as a deranged, predator of children holy soley because it is male. I never think of it as anything other than -That which declared its dick god and offered our children in sacrifice to it.

I just found out the last year that they essentially codified it in canon law 100 years ago. They have been becoming increasingly blatant in the 100 years = 2.5 generations since.

My religion was always very important to me and I WILL LITERALLY BE DAMMED if I worship the Great Penis in the Sky to Which You Must Sacrifice Children.

Ass handed to me on a platter? I think I am doing rather well. The Muslim scholar & I had a great deal of fun a few weeks ago on a marathon 2 hour +- phone conversation.

CyberLN's picture
You referred to atheists as a

You referred to atheists as a ‘group’. I think that’s WAY off.

Additionally, as with (I would imagine) any on-line forum, posters come and go. For instance, of the posters who were here when I first arrived, zero are still participating. The folks who identify themselves as theist don’t seem to post as frequently, even if they are longer term participants. So demographics would difficult to conjure and be averages at best.

That all being said, if I were to guess, I’d say 10% at most of people who post are folks who would identify and themselves as theist. There are more, however, who join and never post a word. Who knows how many follow these discussions who never join.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
Ask the IT.

Ask the IT.

Not really. One of the questions when signing up for this forum is if you are or are not a believer. The IT in charge should be able to pull that data relatively quickly.

Group - How else would you describe a forum? Do you mean that you don't have an underlying, unifier other than a definition of what you are NOT? Slightly different - Do you mean that you don't have a moral code, title, such as all secular humanist?

I think the big title at the top would be the lie - ...atheists who care/give a shit

Care/give a shit about WHAT exactly?

I find it VERY interesting that you say the theists are the ones who stay. Are you one of the founders of the forum? Is the founder still around?

CyberLN's picture
“Ask the IT.”

“Ask the IT.”
You are the one interested in those statistics. You are more than welcome to ask that in the the Site Support section.

“Group - How else would you describe a forum?”
As a number of rather chatty individuals.

“Do you mean that you don't have an underlying, unifier other than a definition of what you are NOT? Slightly different - Do you mean that you don't have a moral code, title, such as all secular humanist?”
Some claim to, some don’t. The only unifier among those identified as atheist is no belief in god(s).

“Care/give a shit about WHAT exactly?”
Well, I can’t speak for anyone but myself...I give a shit about a ton of things. Are you looking for a list?

“I find it VERY interesting that you say the theists are the ones who stay.”
I don’t recall saying that.

“Are you one of the founders of the forum?”
No, but I started participating in these forums years ago.

“Is the founder still around?”
Around where? Armin Navabi is the founder of AR.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
Site Support - Oh, goody! I

Site Support - Oh, goody! I hope I get a reply.

But you are all chatty on the same subject. I think that meets the IRS definition of religion. I recently watched a comedian found his own religion on his regular program on that premise. It was great.

That is a definition of a group.

Actually I would be interested in a list of what gets people upset and why - whether injustice, guns or how to hang the toilet paper = One on Ann Lander's biggest discussions.

CyberLN's picture
“But you are all chatty on

“But you are all chatty on the same subject. I think that meets the IRS definition of religion.”

What? You’re asserting that if folks chat about a subject together that the U.S. government would consider it a religion?

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
I think the television comic

I think the television comic called his church "Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility" Google might bring it up. I can't remember his name. I think his wife was Wanda.

The rules are pretty vague and it took very little for his normal program to qualify. He did it in one program.

The forum doesn't discuss any old subject, it discusses religion - so as I said. I would not be surprised if it qualified.

chimp3's picture
You are wrong about the

You are wrong about the subject matter we discuss. Politics is a frequent source of debate here.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
Interesting Again. I am new

Interesting Again. I am new and mostly just picking the stuff I am interested in which is the religious debate. I haven't clicked anything that looks political. Your name is atheist, which would mean a non-religion/religion debate.

Or does that mean that you think all politicians are godless? :)

chimp3's picture
Everything is godless!

Everything is godless!

LogicForTW's picture
I think the television comic

I think the television comic called his church "Our Lady of Perpetual Responsibility" Google might bring it up. I can't remember his name. I think his wife was Wanda.

The rules are pretty vague and it took very little for his normal program to qualify. He did it in one program.

It was on last week tonight, by John Oliver. "Our lady of perpetual exemption." He ended up covering it all in 3-4 episodes. Whole thing is quite hilarious but also points out how easy it is to create a "religion" and make it a giant tax shelter and for televangelist to fleece people and make many millions, all tax free and largely protected from legal intervention because it is a "religion."

This forum would not qualify. The entire site, maybe, if it had weekly meetings of 12+ people (or something like that.)

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


"But you are all chatty on the same subject. I think that meets the IRS definition of religion."

Dead wrong.

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

Distinct legal existence
Recognized creed and form of worship
Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
Formal code of doctrine and discipline
Distinct religious history
Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
Organization of ordained ministers
Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
Literature of its own
Established places of worship
Regular congregations
Regular religious services
Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
Schools for the preparation of its members

The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.

Source: Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.

Nothing changed since then me dear.

Please do not go down the road of "atheism as a belief" or "you all have faith in atheism"
That would be shot down in flames so quickly you wouldn't have time to reach for the fire extinguisher.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
From reading the list, it

From reading the list, it appears that if the entity running this forum bought one of those quickie degrees on line, this website would qualify. If the TV program made it, you probably could too and get the tax write off. At the least, it would be an interesting exercise in what the IRS has to say and a good conversation with the next Jehovah Witness, etc. that knocks on your door.

If you don't believe in what you are saying, why are you so adamant about it? Does your world view change that drastically day to day?

"Faith in Atheism" - Agree that is totally silly

But you all are adamant in your views on god.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


No, once again that is a theists erroneous viewpoint.

I do not 'Believe" I have a non belief.
I am adamant that to make me accept as real, a god or gods, there will have to be credible, irrefutable evidence.
I have no rigid views on any god except that no one has managed to come close to proving a god or gods existence. Any more than they have proved a pink flying unicorn with farts that taste like honey's existence.

I loathe the hypocrisy of organised religion.
I loathe the hierarchy of organised religion
I despair of the violence of organised religion
I oppose the power of organised religion.

There are anti theists who may loosely fit your assertion, but I don't class myself as one.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
The census would agree with

The census would agree with me. They would have no other way of counting you than as - Religion - Atheist.

Right or wrong - people classify people and objects into groups. It is the basis of the start of mathematical reasoning & science.

Try to find the similarities and differences and cause and effect. Fall flat on your face, pick yourself up and figure out what you did wrong.

LogicForTW's picture
On a census form, when/if it

On a census form, when/if it asked religious affiliation, I would write "none" not atheist. Someone doing the data entry work may change/convert my classification to atheist, but that is their opinion/decision not necessarily mine. I think currently in the US, they just simply leave it blank. And throw it in the "no declared religious affiliation" classification for databases.

I don't really care what other people classify me as, as long as they do not persecute me in anyway for it. Once you live in a large metro city area, you have a nice cloak of religious anonymity. It is impolite to ask religious affiliation, and it is very difficult for people to track your religious affiliation unless you are overt about it.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
Petition to add "do not wish

Petition to add "do not wish to reply"

Sheldon's picture
I'm not aware of an atheist

I'm not aware of an atheist on here who is not open to proper evidence. The fact they won't change their mind is indicative of the inability of theists and religious apologists to demonstrate any objective evidence for a deity.

Are you adamant that unicorns and mermaids don't exist?

Tin-man's picture
@MPO Re: "But you are all

@MPO Re: "But you are all chatty on the same subject. I think that meets the IRS definition of religion."

Wow! That's fascinating. Wait until my wife hears about this. She is a member on a gardening site, and they are endlessly chatty about gardens and flowers and vegetables and fertilizers and such. Can't wait to tell her she is faithful follower of the Religion of Holy Gardeners.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
If they want to organize

If they want to organize under the tax code, tell the IRS they are druids. Might work. Would again be an interesting conversation.

David Killens's picture
The only reason I accept the

The only reason I accept the label of "atheist" is because it matches my personal world view. I am very sure that my position on politics or other subjects is in opposition to other atheists. I do not accept being categorized or having others assume that just because I identify with one belief, that I must also follow the overall trend of that group.

Unfortunately for this forum, the usual dynamics is that one theist joins, makes assertions, then multiple atheists make powerful (and well prepared and researched) counters to the assertions. Sadly, at times this can have the optics of a pack of wolves descending on a wounded calf. I wish that was not so, I appreciate a healthy debate. But if the theist was arrogant and did not have their facts, then their faults are quickly exposed and they deserve their fate.

I give a s--t for a lot of reasons. It pains me to see children being conditioned to believe they must live in fear and do not have the ability or strength to face the demands of life. It strips away their independence and self-worth.

I care because slavery is immoral. I care because making proper decisions that have major effects in politics is tainted by superstitious beliefs. I care that the most effective tool to determine facts and the truth (science) is being attacked and dismissed just because it exposes fallacies in religion. I care that in too many examples women are treated as second-class citizens. I care that there are too many irresponsible or cruel animal owners. Those are just a few examples because there is a heck of a lot I care about, and many very passionately.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
Humans divide and merge

Humans divide and merge between groups almost as much as they breath. I think there is a fancy psychological term for it. Be wary of the ones who don't. They can have a higher than normal probability of firing automatic weapons into a crowd or be more likely to be victimized. Ability to merge into groups increases the chances of survival.

You are a subset of humanity in the group "Atheist" You simultaneously merge in and out of the political, etc groups as needed.

I agree the wolves on wounded calf is NOT at all acceptable and would show that theists do NOT have the monopoly of cruelty. As I said in my other post - We are the cockatoos, Rah! Rah! Rah! = I belong to the magic group that means I get to kill you. God or no God.

I'm still surviving in this forum.

Now the other points Separating out the cockatoos -(and the reason for the party given at the end of the book 1984 = ability to cause pain to others even to your own detriment ) Religion would NOT survive if its whole point was to install fear and misery. The stress alone kills. Humans are sadistic and masochistic, but not to that point otherwise a lot of you wouldn't have left the religions you were raised in.

My religion was the opposite. It provided the love and courage needed for me to survive school. It provided the ability and strength for me to continue. It ALLOWED me to be independent and was a HUGE part of my self worth.

I believe the movie was called "Amazing Grace" and the movie "Amastad" The first showed the end of slavery in Great Britain. I think under Pitt the younger. As I remember, one of the characters was John Milton - the ex slaver who converted and dedicated his life to ending the practice.

"Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a WRETCH like me." That wasn't hyperbola. He was being literal. The song was one of the weapons they used to stop the slave trade. The impetus to stop the trade was RELIGIOUS. The prayer battle was continued in the movie Amastad. The women dropped to their knees outside the prison to pray for the release of the slaves because that was the only weapon they had. Same with Prohibition.

Christianity made bearable the slavery both of the American South and the ancient Roman Empire. Quote I read about the early Christians - "Christianity! That is only the religion of women, slaves, soldiers, and other scum!"

Which superstitious belief? The one that all are equal and we are all our brothers' keeper or the NRA/ISIS who believe in no higher power than automatic weapons and vast quantities of explosives.

"I care that the most effective tool to determine facts and the truth (science) is being attacked and dismissed just because it exposes fallacies in religion." Double that. I am an engineer. Also remember that of the fallacies in religion are FALLACIES IN RELIGION. Creationism included. Saint Augustine was fighting against those fallacies back in the 300's and they KEPT him from believing in the 'nonsense' of Christianity before he converted. Now before he was a Christian, he believed in this really weird religion where the 'priests' ate this 'magic' food and breathed out angels. He found that more believable under he found someone educated to explain Christianity. He came up with the concept that the first thing God created was time itself - about 1.5 millenia BEFORE Einstein & relativity.

Christianity STARTED as women empowered. The mantra of the Peace Corps - DO NOT DESIGN ANYTHING THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE SOME manual steps. As soon as it becomes too powerful/desirable, the men gather together and steal it from the women. I continually see examples. The woman founder of the American religion = Money = Men gathered together and kicked her out. The women 'pack' mules along the Moroccan (?) border. They could scrape out a living until the men lost their jobs and literally kicked them aside.

Now ignore the white male preachers and re-read the Gospels and Acts. Start with the incredible miracle that was St. Joseph. Vatican survey question - "What forgotten Latin document I had never heard of & the Bible say about family?" Good question. Until you get to St. Joseph - It says - You are lucky to survive.St. Joseph - says nothing but does EVERYTHING for the benefit of his wife and her child. Go back to previous statements here about self sacrifice.

I tracked down the lady Greek Scholar who recently translated the Odessy (I think it was. I told you I am an equal opportunity troll) She isn't an expert on 'Kione' (sp?) Greek. But she told me this is what Christ is quoted as saying - A 'technos' son of a BUILDER/contractor - Simon - You are a boulder (Petros) (Masculine - worthless boulder that will crumble under load) on this (Petra) bedrock/material (feminine - solid) I will build my church. I specifically asked her about the gender in the sentence as it had come up in other studies. I supplied the engineering. Now, the original Aramaic/Hebrew is long gone. But this would have been the Greek that spread the Gospel. - Remember, women usually deal more with semantics. Who would this have meant the most too?

The cruelty DECREASES under Christianity. The archaeologists will tell you it was MUCH WORSE before.

Same here on the passion, but I don't believe religion is the cause of the troubles.

Sapporo's picture
You mention the abolition of

You mention the abolition of slavery in Britain being the result of Christians, as though Christianity was the reason slavery was abolition. At that time, probably less than 1 in a 1000 of the population were atheists. Indeed, at that time, it was illegal for politicians to be atheists until many decades later, due to religious persecution.

Christian slaveowners justified slavery over the last two millennia by referring to passages in the bible where Jesus said that slaves should obey their owners as Christians are expected to obey their master in heaven. If Christianity was fundamentally anti-slavery, it wouldn't describe god as a slaveowner.

BTW, I've seen the Amazing Grace movie and thought it was otherwise very good. (The song was written John Newton).

Algebe's picture
@Sapporo: Christian

@Sapporo: Christian slaveowners justified slavery over the last two millennia by referring to passages in the bible where Jesus said that slaves should obey their owners

See also the Curse of Ham, which was used specifically for the justification of black slavery (and also for keeping blacks out of the Mormon church).

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
The Christians fighting

The Christians fighting slavery were fighting from a Christian viewpoint. Were the rest Enlightenment? Do you know the impetus of the others fighting slavery? I would be curious.

Sapporo's picture
Great atrocities have been

Great atrocities have been committed in the name of Christianity. If slavery is wrong, it is not wrong because Christ said it is. (As it happens, he only seemed to wish to maintain the status quo at best - at worst, he actually saw slavery as a natural state that is desirable).

Old man shouts at clouds's picture


There were many forces uniting to condemn slavery. It caused quite a schism in the Freemasonry movement with some lodges (Remember that Freemasonry was very influential in the 18th and 19th centuries) supporting, some individuals dissenting until finally most were united in the anti slavery cause. here's a useful article for you to read. Shows some light on the vacillation of the Royal family at the time...https://www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/exhibitions/museums/squaring....

Greensnake's picture
Mrs. Owczarek,

Mrs. Owczarek,

You don't get a merit badge for "still surviving on this forum!" Utter idiots have occasionally parked here for extended periods of time. (They may have played the role of a soccer ball, but in their minds they were triumphant because they were still yakking.) Above and beyond getting familiar with the forum and its inhabitants, and telling us a little bit about yourself, do you have any specific thesis or topic you wish to discuss in some detail? You could start a thread advocating some specific, well-stated point of view or question--and defend it as the comments come in.

Mrs. Paul Owczarek's picture
I did that in my first post -

I did that in my first post - I am trying this out looking for allies to fight legalized pedophilia in the Catholic church. I also wanted to get a feel for the viewpoints.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.