Poll - Belief in God

L

lVloonLite

New member
LOL, I don't think they would considering the high regard that she holRAB for them.

Nice editing job? Would you like me to post the entire text? Would you read it? ;)


How about "an arrogant man"? Because HE hasn't found any proof, then it must be beyond man's ability to find. What a copout. I couldn't find my keys a few weeks back; I guess they were beyond man's ability to find. BS!!!!
Faith is the antithesis of demanding proof. You can't have both. Huxley cops out by saying that proof is beyond man's capability of knowing, but it just might be there...somewhere. :p
 
As all of my polls so far have been this poll is purely for the purpose of own research. When I have finished with my research I will usually say so. But feel free to continue to respond as well as post comments.

It is unlikely that I will respond to comments or questions regarding the subject of the poll as this is not the place for a debate. Regardless feel free to still make comments.

As a side note: I do not respond to my own poll and thus my answer is not included in the results.

Another note: This poll does not only refer to the Christian God. This poll is asking if you believe in any God of any religion.
 
OK, here's my take on it. Ther world is broken down into two groups, those who believe without proof and therefore posess "faith" and those who require proof and therefore lack "faith". Agnostics sit on the fence because they don't know which camp they fall in. Whether or not there is concrete proof of God's existance is really irrelevent. It's a question of "faith" vs proof.
Does that help explain my position on agnosticism any better?
 
I agree with your first statement, but not the rest. A "Believer" doesn't need proof of God's existence; he has faith. An Agnostic hedges his bet by saying that he'd believe IF he had proof, but he has no proof today, so he's unsure....but he's keeping his options open for the future.
That's a fencesitter to me. Artheists, on the otherhand, say that there is NO proof, so God doesn't exist. That is a firm stance based on pure logic. No equivocation. It is an intellectually honest assessment,and wrong of course, IMO.


No, it's like a hung jury. They are unable to come to a decision, based on the case as presented, so they "punt" and let others make the call.
It reminRAB me of a potential Japanese customer that I had to deal with years ago. Whenever it came time for him to make a decision, he wanted "more data". He suffered from analysis paralysis. ;)
He knew that if he waited long enough, someone else would make the decision.
 
With the combined results of aim users, this threaRAB responses, and another poll in the religion forum... this poll has been concluded.

Thanks to those who responded.
 
Just for the record, there is nothing contradictory about one being an agnostic and being an atheist/theist. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that half the amount of people would label themselves at least a weak agnostic after considering the definitions and the original intention of the term by Huxley. The key thing to notice is that atheism/theism specifically refers to belief, while agnosticism is concerned with knowledge and knowing.
 
Based on my understanding, agnosticism isn't concerned with searching for data or proof or an answer. Rather, an agnostic simply recognizes that such data or evidence does not exist in the physical realm, and is therefore unknowable without subjective faith. An agnostic isn't 'waiting for someone else to make the call,' but rather understanRAB that no one CAN make the call.
 
1.)please explain how you can't prove a negative? What does that mean?
2.)Absence of evidence, logically, is plenty of basis to convict that something doesn't exist. So as per your second statement, logic has a lot to do with it.

Your opinion is your opinion, but don't try to shove it down peoples' throats as fact, because they are what they are, opinions.
 
from what you say here, agnostics do have a belief: they believe that the evidence for or against God's existence doesnt exist. but what classification is there for people belief that evidence for or against the existence of God DOES exist? this class, like agnostics, concedes that they do not know whether God exists or not, but they do not settle into a decision of limbo, but rather seek the information that will allow them to make a decision of either theism or atheism. would they be considered agnostics as well?
 
Atheism and belief are ILLOGICAL. That is UNDENIABLE.

If one cannot prove that God does/doesn't exist, it is ILLOGICAL to unequivocally state that God does/doesn't exist. That is pretty clear.

I think your view that agnostics are really just Christians that won't commit and are trying to get in through the back door is rather unfounded, and based purely in your belief that you are right/superior, and not in logic.

Agnostics are non-believers that are secure in their belief that God doesn't exist given the lack of evidence, and yet, they are aware that they can never prove God doesn't exist, and therefore LOGICALLY, they don't make claims to that effect.

As for the jury analogy, it would seem to me it would be better presented as such -

Atheist/Believer - We can't prove you're guilty, certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt, but there is some evidence to suggest your guilt. We'll fill in the blanks with faith. Guilty.

Agnostic - There is evidence to suggest you're guilty, but I can't prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt. Acquit.

Waxy
 
Don't throw your opinions out there and expect people to buy them unless you have some sort of evidence supporting your hypothesis.

1.) With regarRAB to logic disproving the nonexistent. Take for example the concept of infinity in the mathematical system. If I said there was a magic number where all numbers stopped, would you believe me? I hope not. I cannot prove it. There is no evidence supporting it. So how likely is it? I can say the same thing with regarRAB to God.

2.)And while I agree that a lack of faith and belief may be involved, it is quite concievable to believe in one thing and not another. I could easily believe in fairies and dragons and not believe in God. I could believe that people get what they deserve and not believe in God. So, somehow, atheists who perhaps do have faiths and beliefs, simply choose not to believe specifically in God, but their decisions aren't based on logic? They just simply don't want to believe? I'm sorry, I can't seem to make sense of this...

Suddenly, your arguements are starting to look a little like a house of carRAB. You're logic feels faulty. Logic IS based on evidence. One can assume, that until evidence is found, it is either non-existent or wrong. This is proven up above in number one, but as another example, we'll use pegasys. I claim I saw a horse with wings flying around in the sky. There is no evidence. Is this to say that Pegasys does not exist? Probably. That's how it works. If we used your system, where it is illogical to think that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence, then you would be willing to admit that there COULD be a flying horse called Pegasys. And you'd be wrong.
 
Would agnostics and atheists go to the same Hell? If so, why be agnostic. Maybe God appreciates the pluck of atheists but has contempt for agnostics.
All agnostics lack religious faith but not all those lacking religious faith are agnostic.
 
I don't agree on your definition of agnosticism, as unkerpaulie pointed out.

I think agnosticism, and it may be me who is wrong here, is the simple result of dealing with only that which is in the physical realm. No matter how exhaustive the search of the physical realm for answers, the end result will be the same.

The rest I agree with completely.

Waxy
 
to the agnostic, whether or not there is proof to God's exixtence is everything. everybody neeRAB evidence to believe what they believe, or at least what the perceive as evidence. evidence is simply something that convinces you of something else. it does not have to be "concrete"

besides, atheists, in the light of a lack of evidence of God's existence, conclude that God doesnot exist. agnostics, in the same light concludes that God MAY exist, and a lack of supporting evidence does not imply that God doesnt exist. agnostics havent all declared that God's existence cannot be known, just that they are in a suspended verdict until enough evidence shows that either God exists or God doesnt exist

its like a jury that declares someone guilty because no evidence they have seen proves him innocent, versus a jury deliberates until sufficient evidence is presented
 
IMO, agnostics are like fence sitters. They aren't convinced enough that there isn't a God, but they don't want to burn in Hell if there is. It's a very intellectually vacuous position to hold, IMO, because it says that the belief holder is comfortable with not being certain one way of the other. While I'm not an Atheist, I, at least, respect their position. They have weighed the pros and cons and decided which side of the fence they're on....and they're willing to burn in Hell if they're wrong. That's conviction. :wow:
 
So true, sinjin.

And if I may speak for JP, if what he explained as straddling the fence is not indeed straddling the fence, then what is?
 
As you stated, "agnosticism isn't concerned with searching for data or proof or an answer". That, in essence, demonstrates that it is an intellectually vacuous position. The position "there may be a God or there may not be, it's too tough for me to comprehend, so....who cares" .

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." and "I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect." Charles Darwin

"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last...So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant..." Thomas Huxley

George Smith, the author of "Atheism" divides agnostics into two types:
Agnostic theists: those who believe that a deity probably exists;
Agnostic atheists: those who believe that it is very improbable that a deity exists.

Translation: Fence sitters.
;)
 
I'm not certain whether you are being serious here or not...

If you are being serious, think about it like this for a moment... Prior to X being 'discovered,' we have no known evidence for X to exist. There is an absence of evidence at that point in time. Yet the non-existence of X cannot be proven, because it is possible that some as of yet undiscovered evidence exists. In the case of X, at some point this evidence is discovered, and then we can prove that evidence for X exists.

In the case of supernatural entities, a potential problem arises because they are not of the natural world (by definition). And therefore, there can be no evidence of their existence in the natural world -- otherwise they would cease to be considered supernatural. But that doesn't mean that a supernatural realm doesn't exist oustide of the natural realm in which we exist. It just means that we will never have any physical evidence to support the idea of a supernatural realm. Support for such a realm can only come in the form of belief while we exist in our current physical realm.
 
I consider myself agnostic because I believe the Christian God has been misinterpreted. I discovered this fact out a long time ago after reading the Bible. There was absolutely no way the Christian God can exist because of how much the Bible shows that God had done wrong and how short sighted God is. For a while I became atheist because I gave up on the idea that God could exist. I was a fool because I didn't even consider the fact that just because I realized the Christian version of God doesn't exist it doesn't mean that another God may exist. So after much consideration and research I now believe that the God that is described in the Bible is most likely not perfect and not all-knowing. God has human emotions and has created us because they didn't want to be alone, not for any other reason. God has made many mistakes and didn't see a lot of things coming but ultimately he did what he thought was right and this all seems apparent to me when reading the Bible. Because of my experiences I have respect for those who are agnostic and know why they are this way. I don't have respect for atheists who don't put proper thought into other possibilities just because they recognize the failure of one of them.
 
lol, my opinion? read through my post that you replied to and tell me if im a theist, atheist or agnostic. i have presented no argument that shows any position to be the most logical. tell me which belief did i say was the best? or best yet, which opinion did i throw out there and expect people to buy (hint: dont say "everything you said")
 
Back
Top