I suppose for me it would be Buddhism, where gods are not central to the faith and there is no creator God.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

What religion do you find the most appealing out of the major ones? Which do you find the least appealing?
My password is password.

This message has been deleted.

did you use moisturiser? which one?
cursed, scarred & forever possessed

ask me anything
Are you as happy as me that Cape Verde made it to the world cup?

i'm good on ridiculing ideas.
My guiding mantra has always been that while people have rights, ideas do not.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

i'm good on ridiculing ideas. it's a way to test them with fire.
ridiculing people seems like a way to shame them back into the herd.
i think people need to understand identity a bit better in order to get to know themselves and with that construct a thicker skin.
then they can begin exploring a world full of interesting ideas and views much different than their own.

To be honest I did say, above "ridicule their claims' not so much the people, and I should stress that I fully agree for anyone to hold the views they want. The trouble is that many believers take themselves so seriously that they take any criticism of sacred cows personally. However having said that, in a free society at least there is no reason why some people cannot be laughed at as much as their ideas. And let us not forget that religion has a history of treating its doubters and detractors, inside and out, very painfully and fatally indeed to which a little scorn can hardly be compared.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Is it best to ridicule to their face or behind their back?
why ridicule anyone?

Personally, I prefer to be upfront and open about things. In some theocracies, though, it can be very unwise. It is however difficult to only poke fun at the religious when they are present. (And they might think that one is saving it up just for them.)
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

Is it best to ridicule to their face or behind their back?

It is best practice to take the religious at their word in that what they say is what they really think, so in that regards I would say I take them seriously. But that does not mean one cannot ridicule their ideas.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

How do you take people seriously who believe in a sky fairy and a dumb storybook that was first drafted 2,000 years ago? I struggle with this.

were you always soft?

What about when that other guys has an erection?
My password is password.

What about when you have an erection?
My password is password.

You're a homo soft atheist?
My password is password.

It is a slightly different but significant position. I fully admit that I have a lot in common with agnostics, but as I say I am defined by my lack of belief, not by stressing that final knowledge of such things as the existence of a god is impossible.
Whether one position is more 'correct' than the other, I think is a matter of subjectivity.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

because agnostics acknowledge that humans can't possibly prove or disprove the existence of a god being while also choosing not to believe. it's like taking it a step further to conclude that it's a total waste of time to contemplate the existence of a god being.
jestergooning

Correct in what respect? Personally I define myself by a lack of belief in a god, which is what commonly defines an atheist, not by what one can or cannot know (although that is one reason for my position).
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

isn't agnostic atheist the most correct position to take?
jestergooning

An agnostic does not believe in God because it is felt that it impossible ever to know if one exists. The core difference is that agnosticism is a position on knowledge, while soft atheism is a position on belief. The two are not mutually exclusive, and in practice, most soft atheists are also agnostics.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.

how is that not just agnostic?
jestergooning

what's a soft atheist?
One who does not believe in a deity, but makes no assertion that a god does not exist.
are soft atheists those leftoid retards I see online making excuses for Islamic terror while bashing Christianity for not being gay enough?
Even if I accept this characterisation, the answer is no. A simple lack of belief in a god is not a political or social position.
I think you'll find things are a little more complicated than that.