Poll: What are your religious/theologic beliefs

[SphinxnihpS]

This is actually what I would consider agnostic, though I guess depending on who you ask, the line gets blurry.

Then you clearly need a dictionary. a -> without; gnostos -> knowledge, without knowledge; i.e. I don't know.

Is there a god? I don't know.

Is there life after death? I don't know.

Did god give humans the ability to reason? I don't know.

Does god want us to behave morally? I don't know.

 

[MJinZ]

Then you clearly need a dictionary. a -> without; gnostos -> knowledge, without knowledge; i.e. I don't know.

Is there a god? I don't know.

Is there life after death? I don't know.

Did god give humans the ability to reason? I don't know.

Does god want us to behave morally? I don't know.

I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

 

[SphinxnihpS]

I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosis

Have you somehow contradicted me? I don't think so.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Agnostic.

 

[zinfamous]

Hey, it's Buddhist, not Budist. Get it right.

that's a different religion all together. It's for those who like the weed.

 

[MJinZ]

Have you somehow contradicted me? I don't think so.

Uh, I think Agnostic came from A-Gnosis, which is more specific than just "I don't know".

 

[mk]

Non-religious agnostic atheist.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Uh, I think Agnostic came from A-Gnosis, which is more specific than just "I don't know".

And that's where you're wrong. If you want to quibble that gnostos means "knowledge of god", rather than just general knowledge, that's fine, but even then it doesn't change anything about my point. The word predates the religion of the same name, so if your assertion is that the word came from early Christians, you are incorrect. Agnostic literally means I do not know about god. I don't know if it exists, what it eats, where it lives, what it wants, etc.

What it certainly DOESN'T mean is:

* Rejection of all religions based on books that claim to contain the revealed word of God.
* God exists, created and governs the universe.
* God gave humans the ability to reason.
* God wants human beings to behave morally.

These are points non-religious or anti-religious theists would argue, not agnostics.

My point was that what Train thinks of as an agnostic or an agnostic ideal, is not, only an anti-religious one.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Atheist, but of the weak variety. I am of the opinion that there is no God, no soul, and no afterlife. I am of the opinion that these things are fabrications borne of humanity's desire for eternal life and consequent fear of death and that religions of all sorts bear the obvious hallmarks of having been created by humans, for humans.

I say that I am of the weak variety of Atheist because I realize that my opinions are based on the finite knowledge I have collected thus far in my life and could be wrong. I don't think I'm wrong, but I admit the possibility. I separate myself from the agnostic by having an opinion in the direction of atheism, and I separate myself from the strong atheist by not possessing the pseudo-religious certitude displayed by that extreme, which coincidentally is present in nearly all true theists as well.

This. I accept the logical imperative that it's impossible to disprove god, but I don't believe there is one for the same reason I don't believe I'm sitting next to an invisible ghost - there is no reason to. No, this is not agnosticism, and if you believe it is then you don't understand it.

You forgot to add anti-theist to the poll. Theres a lot of them around ATOT. Though they probably mistakenly think of themselves as atheists.

Also, this.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

Agnostic is not a "middle way" between theism and atheism. It deals with the question of knowledge. The fact is we are all agnostic (without knowledge). Those who claim certain knowledge on either side are delusional. The word says nothing at all about your belief. It deals with a completely different question. If you are "unsure", but don't currently believe in a deity or religion, that makes you an atheist whether you like it or not.

According to your chart, I'm an agnostic atheist. I was a bit cavalier in my first post, though. I believe a god very well could exist, but there is simply not enough incontrovertible evidence to prove it. I like to believe in some sort of afterlife for everyone's soul though; it's really just being hopeful, since descending into eternal darkness after life just seems...pessimistic. I find the main problem with religion to be that many of them claim that they know the be-all-end-all truth to life, which is simply not possible. Buddhism sounds more like my cup of tea - be a good person, explore one's self, and "heaven" will be an understanding of the universe and being at peace with it.

 

[totalnoob]

According to your chart, I'm an agnostic atheist.

This is really the proper way to do it. Everyone needs to use both "columns" to describe themselves properly. Many people have a confused notion that "agnostic" is a compromise between two extremes and it really isn't. Belief in a God and lack of belief exhaust ALL the possibilities.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Agnosticism. Because Atheism is also a belief. It's the belief that there's no god or deity. Believing in or denying something without definite proof is stupid.

LOL definition fail.

 

[Kadarin]

And yet religion and faith are universally found in every culture, and brain scans show different activity when subjects engage in activities regarding faith, such as prayer. Clearly there was an evolutionary purpose to faith, for it to last so long and have such an observable effect.

Looking at history and culture, I think it's stating the obvious that religion has both an effect and a purpose. However, that observation has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not any given set of beliefs is anything more than pure nonsense. So when I say that my particular book that describes some fairy tale omnipotent man in the sky is right while your equivalent book that describes your fairy tale omnipotent man in the sky is wrong, how do you refute me?

 

[destrekor]

This is actually what I would consider agnostic, though I guess depending on who you ask, the line gets blurry.

The typical definition of an agnostic individual would be:

they just don't know if there is a god or not, and because there is a lack of knowledge, it is implied they don't accept any current information as factual, so a deity's ideals/motives and any texts are wholly irrelevant to these individuals.

An agnostic-atheist would be:

someone who currently denies the existence of deities, but only because there is no evidence to make belief a logical solution. If there were convincing evidence, this person would accept reality.
This directly contrasts with a person who is so hardcore atheist, would deny the existence of a deity even while essentially staring down the barrel. That is fundamentalist atheism, equivalent to the terrible fundamentalist theism.

 

[Train]

So when I say that my particular book that describes some fairy tale omnipotent man in the sky is right while your equivalent book that describes your fairy tale omnipotent man in the sky is wrong, how do you refute me?

There's different books about WWII that can have very different conclusions as to the how and why certain things happened. Does that mean WWII didnt happen?

And I just love how the anti-theists throw in "fairy tale" every chance they get. I really hope it makes you feel better.

 

[yinan]

Too lazy to read the whole thread, but I am spiritual but I do not believe mankind has evolved enough to where we can truly comprehend the universe. Plus, if we were created in the image of someone than that person truly messed up because look at all the bad things humans do to each other.

 

[Vette73]

There's different books about WWII that can have very different conclusions as to the how and why certain things happened. Does that mean WWII didnt happen?

And I just love how the anti-theists throw in "fairy tale" every chance they get. I really hope it makes you feel better.

Conclusions are opinions, it existing is not an opinion but either a fact of it exists or does not.


i.e. Japan should not have bombed Pearl Harbor = Opinion
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor = fact

 

[Train]

Conclusions are opinions, it existing is not an opinion but either a fact of it exists or does not.


i.e. Japan should not have bombed Pearl Harbor = Opinion
Japan bombed Pearl Harbor = fact

You just proved my point.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

I'm surprised at the high percentage of atheists, and I'm becoming a little more hopeful for the future of humans.

 

[Vette73]

You just proved my point.

No, only in your small mind would you think that.


There is no factual support for a diety. In fact there is a lot of support to show that religion/dietys are made up by man.


Your conclusions based on something other than fact is just a conclusion. A factual statement with support is just that, a factual statement.

 

[Train]

No, only in your small mind would you think that.


There is no factual support for a diety. In fact there is a lot of support to show that religion/dietys are made up by man.

You both proved my point AND missed it. lol.

 

[Vette73]

You both proved my point AND missed it. lol.

Wow, what a witty retort.

I guess your point was that you are a small minded fool that will believe anything. Got it.

 

[Kadarin]

There's different books about WWII that can have very different conclusions as to the how and why certain things happened. Does that mean WWII didnt happen?

And I just love how the anti-theists throw in "fairy tale" every chance they get. I really hope it makes you feel better.

Your question equates to: There are different books about God and the creation of the universe and morality and so forth, and they have different conclusions about various things therein. Does that therefore mean that God does not exist?

I do not know whether or not God exists. Or whether there happens to be more than one god, or what its gender is, or any other thing about it. Despite the fact that a number of writings exist on the subject, there is no evidence whatsoever that God exists or that any one text is any less worthless than any other.

However, since you happen to believe, you simply cannot accept that there is no such evidence. You just can't.

 

[rivan]

I voted atheist, though it's probably not entirely accurate.

There are powers far higher than man; that's plain to see. That higher power might or might not be sentient.

However, I'm not pompous enough to think we're part of a grand plan or worse, that we're central to a grand plan. I find it far more likely that we're nothing more than bacteria on a grain of sand.

 

[Train]

Your question equates to: There are different books about God and the creation of the universe and morality and so forth, and they have different conclusions about various things therein. Does that therefore mean that God does not exist?

exactly

I do not know whether or not God exists. Or whether there happens to be more than one god, or what its gender is, or any other thing about it. Despite the fact that a number of writings exist on the subject, there is no evidence whatsoever that God exists or that any one text is any less worthless than any other.

However, since you happen to believe, you simply cannot accept that there is no such evidence. You just can't.

Sure I can. Faith is exactly that, believing without proof.