No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably God)

[marduc]

Promoted by the direction that the discussion being had Here: has progressed I thought this may be an interesting /revealing poll to make (hopefully there will be no poll stacking by "anonymous")

The basic question is primarily intended for those who self identify as atheists; however I am including options for everyone (hopefully) to be able to cast a vote, and am curious to see how conviction stacks on the theist side as well.

I am leaving this poll anonymous, so vote honestly please.

 

[marduc]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

crap forgot to add the poll, could I get an assist from a mod please?

Question is simple.. "which option best describes you"

1) I am a theist - there is definitely a God/higher power
2) I am a theist - there is a remote possibility that there is not a God/higher power
3) I am an atheist - there is definitely no God/higher power
4) I am an atheist - there is a remote possibility that there is a God/higher power
5) I self identify as an agnostic, neither atheist nor theist, so I am not the target audience of the poll
6) Other - I defy the above classifications

 

[Jetboogieman]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

"The only thing I know about God, is that he's a man, because a woman would never have come up with such ****ty results, and also if god exists, maybe, just maybe, he doesn't give a ****" - George Carlin (RIP)

 

[rathi]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

You forgot to the add the poll

 

[marduc]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

You forgot to the add the poll

post #2

 

[digsbe]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I vote option number 1.

 

[rathi]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I consider it very likely that all the beings described as gods according to various religions are concepts created by humans rather than actual intelligent beings. Proving a negative is rather difficult though, especially when you have the whole universe to look through. For example, unicorns could theoretically exist if horses evolved on another planet with a horn on their head.

 

[Ikari]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I think that it's fairly unlikely that gods exist. But given the nature of gods as immeasurable, I suppose it's not possible to say 100% either way.

 

[RedAkston]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Moderator's Warning:

Added Poll

 

[marduc]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

thank you Hugh.. sent you a PM (now I have a duplicate poll) you can put me in the stocks and have people throw tomatoes at me later if you must.

 

[Mustachio]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I consider myself an agnostic. I've met some really smart people who would tell you there is definitely a God, and I've met some really smart people who would tell you that there is definitely not a God. That tells me that people really just aren't smart enough to know, and if you think you've got it all figured out, good for you. But you don't have it figured out, because nobody does.

 

[Kernel Sanders]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I responded no god, but my view is slightly more complicated than that. The existence of a supreme being isn't decidable one way or the other. The almost ubiquitous version of god (human being with super powers in the sky) is plainly ridiculous, though.

There may or may not be a god, but I have great certainty that every religion is the same as every other religion - just made up stories that people tell each other. I've never seen a good reason why Islam or Hinduism or any other modern religion is even a little bit less ridiculous than the stories of the Norse or greek gods.

 

[marduc]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I responded no god, but my view is slightly more complicated than that. The existence of a supreme being isn't decidable one way or the other. The almost ubiquitous version of god (human being with super powers in the sky) is plainly ridiculous, though.

There may or may not be a god, but I have great certainty that every religion is the same as every other religion - just made up stories that people tell each other. I've never seen a good reason why Islam or Hinduism or any other modern religion is even a little bit less ridiculous than the stories of the Norse or greek gods.

this thinking is along the lines of what prompted this poll, thank you for taking the time to respond and clarify your position above and beyond the poll option.

edit: the polls wording got changed a little with the mod assist, I was hoping to be able to encapsulate this thinking in option 4 which initially was to read: "I am an atheist - there is a remote possibility that there is a God/higher power"

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

God Exists, I saw him play Guitar with Led Zeppelin

 

[Orion]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

God is a verb, not a noun. Thus I voted other.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I don't believe there is a "god" per se, as much as I believe there is a divine force or energy within the universe that is beyond the full grasp of the mortal mind. I think "gods" as they are thought of is simply the mortal mind attempting to express and make sense of the way in which that divine force touches them and create a situation that makes the impossible to understand somewhat understandable in their mind. I could be wrong but that's my personal take on it.

 

[TheGirlNextDoor]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I voted that I self identify as an agnostic - but I've read before that agnostics should actually consider themselves atheists.

I have felt no belief, I can't blindly believe and I have no proof (this is why I started with my lack of belief, as I realize not everything can be inherently proven). Therefore, I don't rule out the possibility, but I cannot definitively say that there is or is not.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Promoted by the direction that the discussion being had Here: has progressed I thought this may be an interesting /revealing poll to make (hopefully there will be no poll stacking by "anonymous")

The basic question is primarily intended for those who self identify as atheists; however I am including options for everyone (hopefully) to be able to cast a vote, and am curious to see how conviction stacks on the theist side as well.

I am leaving this poll anonymous, so vote honestly please.

I voted that I'm a theist who can't deny the possibility that God doesn't exist. If he does exist, though, I'm quite sure he's/she's laughin' his f'ing ass off at how we've bastardized him. My belief is "All pathes to God." Yours...mine...theirs.

 

[marduc]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I voted that I self identify as an agnostic - but I've read before that agnostics should actually consider themselves atheists.

I have felt no belief, I can't blindly believe and I have no proof (this is why I started with my lack of belief, as I realize not everything can be inherently proven). Therefore, I don't rule out the possibility, but I cannot definitively say that there is or is not.

That is why the "self identify as an agnostic" option is there, I was wanting to get feedback from people who self identify themselves as atheist (or to a lesser degree theist). How others think you should be classifying yourself is unwanted for the purpose of the poll, and insignificant and irrelevant for the purpose of your over all well being,.

 

[Cephus]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I'm an atheist, there could possibly be a god, there simply is no evidence that I've ever seen that supports such a possibility. There could also be unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, space aliens and honest politicians, but I have likewise never seen evidence for any of those, thus I do not believe in any of them.

 

[phattonez]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I'm an atheist, there could possibly be a god, there simply is no evidence that I've ever seen that supports such a possibility. There could also be unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, space aliens and honest politicians, but I have likewise never seen evidence for any of those, thus I do not believe in any of them.

Positivism has no basis in logic. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

I said that there definitely is a God, though logically the position would have to be we don't know. You can't prove a negative. That said, there are plenty of arguments that support the existence of some kind of deity*, and I have personal experiences that solidify it for me. I realize that the personal experiences only apply to me, but there has to be some kind of deity. It makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing. I'm pretty sure that violates the first law of thermodynamics.

*Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cephus]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I voted that I self identify as an agnostic - but I've read before that agnostics should actually consider themselves atheists.

I have felt no belief, I can't blindly believe and I have no proof (this is why I started with my lack of belief, as I realize not everything can be inherently proven). Therefore, I don't rule out the possibility, but I cannot definitively say that there is or is not.

It depends on what definition of agnostic you're using. Unfortunately, the word has been co-opted, largely by people who are afraid to use the term "atheist" to refer to themselves. To many today, it serves as a mid-way point between theism and atheism, but that's not what agnostic really means at all.

Agnosticism and gnosticism are actually terms referring to the ability to know. They have nothing whatsoever to do with atheism and theism, which deal with belief. It helps to look at the root words. a-without, gnosis-knowledge. An agnostic, therefore, is someone who believes that knowledge, in this case of god(s), is impossible. It's not whether or not you have knowledge, but whether or not you can have knowledge. If you think that it is inherently impossible for man to ever have any knowledge whatsoever about the existence or characteristics of god(s), then you are an agnostic. If you think that man can, then you are a gnostic.

However, everyone is also either a theist or an atheist. If you have beliefs in god(s), then you are a theist. If you do not, you are an atheist. It has nothing to do with evidence, knowledge or certainty, it has to do with belief. Belief is a binary. Either it exists or it does not. If it does not, you are an atheist.

 

[Cephus]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Positivism has no basis in logic. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

I said that there definitely is a God, though logically the position would have to be we don't know. You can't prove a negative. That said, there are plenty of arguments that support the existence of some kind of deity*, and I have personal experiences that solidify it for me. I realize that the personal experiences only apply to me, but there has to be some kind of deity. It makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing. I'm pretty sure that violates the first law of thermodynamics.

No, it's lack of evidence, but believing something without having evidence that it's actually true is irrational.

You made the claim that there's a God, I don't have to prove you wrong, you, as the positive claimant, have to prove yourself right. If you fail to do so, I have no reason to take your claim seriously. The same goes if someone runs up to me and claims a giant green lizard is trashing downtown Tokyo. Do they have evidence for their claim? No? I reject the claim as unsupported until evidence comes to light. I do the same with your God. You are solely responsible for defending your own claims. No evidence = no logical credibility.

Besides, the first law of thermodynamics, along with all the other physical laws of our universe, came into existence with the Big Bang. It has no bearing whatsoever prior to that. You cannot apply rules to a situation where they may or may not apply.

 

[rivrrat]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

I self identify as an atheist. Of course it's *possible* that there are gods/desses, but I've not seen a lick of evidence for them. Therefore, I do not believe in them any more than I believe in any other fantasy or mythological creatures for which I have no evidence.

 

[marduc]

Re: No god, or probably not a God (for an added bonus the invese God Vs. probably Go

Positivism has no basis in logic. A lack of evidence is not evidence.

I said that there definitely is a God, though logically the position would have to be we don't know. You can't prove a negative. That said, there are plenty of arguments that support the existence of some kind of deity*, and I have personal experiences that solidify it for me. I realize that the personal experiences only apply to me, but there has to be some kind of deity. It makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing. I'm pretty sure that violates the first law of thermodynamics.

*Quinque viae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

why is God immune to the "it makes no sense to argue that everything comes from nothing" argument or your postulated 1st law violations?