Poll: Who believes in God?

Your beliefs

  • I believe in God

    Votes: 135 13.4%
  • I do not believe in God

    Votes: 445 44.1%
  • I used to believe but have lost my faith

    Votes: 42 4.2%
  • I used to disbelieve but have found my faith

    Votes: 7 0.7%
  • I believe there is "something" but not sure what

    Votes: 200 19.8%
  • I'm Agnostic

    Votes: 167 16.6%
  • I believe in multiple deities

    Votes: 13 1.3%

  • Total voters
    1,009
That's a huge post and i dont have much time, so i'll try and do what i can to explain my feelings. Please try and remember that i'm not advocating that I am correct and religious people are wrong. I'm also not advocating that I hold the only plausible and possible answers and that i'm 100% correct in everythign I say. I just say the things i believe.

I've read your last few posts. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

Firstly, you need to define "weakness". Is it weakness of spirit-that without God Christians would be too "afraid" to act? Is it a lack of intelligence? Is it that Christians pass on the responsibility for their actions to God?

If the first, you must ask if this fear of acting and the belief in God always come together. Everybody experiences fear and has coping strategies. Some, for example, may repeat mantras to themselves; they may tell themself that they are the strongest, best and most intelligent person in the world. Very few people, if any, do not rely on some form of delusion to strengthen themself. What, therefore, is wrong with using God as this delusion?

I see what you're saying. Whilst i have no doubt people offer themselves to delusions to circumnavigate a problem, I do not. Hard to believe isn't it? I have a very firm understanding that I have my limits, and i am ultimately, just a man. I am strong, and I am good at things (not so good at others. like people skills :/) but to tell myself I am the best, that i am unstoppable or capable of anything is to offer myself, in the case of failure, to almost heart breaking dissapointment. Why would a person purposefully torture themselves like that? You could attribute this to a God. I could draw upon every faith in my God to help me succeed, but where would i be if i still failed?

If it is a lack of intelligence, that strikes me as hugely dogmatic. Look at the ancient Greeks. The massive majority of them believed in Greek Gods-Plato, Archimedes and Aristotle are acknowledged as some of the greatest thinkers that the world has ever seen, and all believe in religion. Look at Descartes, at Kant, and a whole host of others. If you say that this is merely a tiny minority, then I would have to flat out disagree with you. If you look at all of the greatest minds of our past, I would be surprised if at least half of them did not believe in God.

I dont fully follow what you're saying here. I think you're asking if i believe that people who believe in God are less intelligent? In this case absolutely not. As mentioned, i know many religious people, and i've no doubts of the number of things they are "better" at than me. I dont believe it hinders an ability *or* that it is the result of a hindered ability. The best way i can describe it is that say... an athlete for example. One athlete takes a steroid, one does not. The undrugged athlete wins the race, or indeed, it's a tie. Who is stronger? I suppose it's a personal view and I understand that you might not agree. I dont expect you to. I'm not trying to convince anyone into agreeing with me, i just wanted to share what I believe. Of course the athlete example is not a perfect one, but i'm struggling to think of one that fits.

If this weakness is that they pass their responsibility on to God, and therefore do not blame themselves when something goes wrong, you are opening a huge can of worms. You must define responsibility to start with. If responsibility consists in our actions being free, then this is questionable as it merely leads to indeterminism; that our actions result out of chance. It is hard to see how we can be responsible in your sense, whether or not you believe in God, and as such holding somebody as weak due to their belief in God again appears to be unfair.

i imagine this is the clincher. I have defined responsibility. At least, what responsibility means to me. I believe that we are responsible for our own actions, and to pass that off is a sign of weakness. To expect help is a sign of weakness. It does not 100% make you a weak person, but weaker than he who expects no help, but blames only himself when it doesnt work out.

that right there, is my opinion. i want to make it absolutely clear that my definition for responsibility, much like my view of God, is entirely what i have chosen to believe. I do not think that people who dont agree are wrong. I do not dislike people who believe otherwise. I just believe that.


I hope this has helped open up my mind a little. It's difficult to explain, as i certainly don't have a grasp of constructive writing as well as you have.

edited a bit that made no sense.
 
Last edited:
Simple logic helps convince me that i dont believe IN god but i do believe god/the force/mystical energy field etc does exist. Its a variant on pascals wager.
I'm not actually sure what "believing IN God means tbh"

remember the world is a bizarre place. Do i need to force you ppl to watch pythons "meaning of life" again?


cya on the other side Ray ;)
 
God would exist without man,but it would be something else entirely, as God is the creation of man.

So if god would exist without man (assuming there is such a thing as god) then what makes you believe the form would not be the same? It could be the capitalisation that is confusing the issue here but if God would exist without man then how can God also be the creation of man?

remember the world is a bizarre place. Do i need to force you ppl to watch pythons "meaning of life" again?

Can I not watch Life Of Brian please, it is the better film.
 
That isn't technically agnosticism. The agnostic does not say that he does not know whether God exists; he says that we cannot know whether God exists. His position is much stronger than the position that you have proposed and would also be classed as narrow minded (if we take narrow mindedness to mean what you imply).

Not true, there are many types of agnosticism and you are talking about strong agnosticism only:

* Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism, absolute agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent God and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience.
* Mild agnosticism (also called weak agnosticism, soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism, temporal agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if more evidence is available.
* Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, but since any God or gods that may exist appear unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic anyway.
* Agnostic theism (also called religious agnosticism)—the view of those who do not claim to know existence of God or gods, but still believe in such an existence. (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs)
* Agnostic atheism—the view of those who do not know of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods, and do not believe in them. "[7]
* Ignosticism—the view that a coherent definition of God must be put forward before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn't coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of God is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept "God exists" as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against.

It's quite interesting, I think a lot of atheists actually follow agnostic atheism. I think my agnosticism would be classed as mild/apathetic.
 
I'm not sure if there's any higher power out there -- Gods, Aliens, or super-smart dolphins. I just know it's best to NOT tick them off if they are out there. Part of that effort is to not choose any particular one to worship.
 
god was created by our imagination for the sole purpose of giving hope when technically there is none.

generally, those people of weaker mind and who cannot get their head around the fact that YES they will die one day turn to religion

in the process of turning to religion they blow other people up they don't agree with and try to convince themselves they are not clinically insane by spreading their lies and dillusion to other weak minded people like themselves

after they have strangly accepted that they have be saved for everlasting life by said god, they then feel above those who have 'not seen the light' and gives them a sense of misguided worth and smugness, when in reality it's just proving their own insanity.

my 2 pence

edit: dont mean to offend anyone by above, but just my thoughts on it
 
Last edited:
A true believer would not need to discuss God.

they would feel compelled to spread the word to others.... and bomb those who won't comply with their beliefs.

more people have died through history because of religion than anything else, so in fact disproves gods existance through religions very existance. (just lol)
 
Last edited:
they would feel compelled to spread the word to others.... and bomb those who won't comply with their beliefs.

True believers have no compulsions, no need to prove a point, no need to argue, no digresssions. Just acceptance of what is. Obviously there aren't many true believers on the planet, about 100 in fact :p. The rest are disillusioned.
 
more people have died through history because of religion than anything else, so in fact disproves gods existance through religions very existance.

:rolleyes: you really are narrow minded and believe tabloids don't you. religion has been used as an excuse. It's power land expanison etc. That has been the reason behind all these things.
 
True believers have no compulsions, no need to prove a point, no need to argue, no digresssions. Just acceptance of what is. Obviously there aren't many true believers on the planet, about 100 in fact :p. The rest are disillusioned.

If you don't need to prove something to yourself before believing it, it just proves your own insanity.
 
:rolleyes: you really are narrow minded and believe tabloids don't you. religion has been used as an excuse. It's power land expanison etc. That has been the reason behind all these things.

most wars are fought in the name of god (thats history not the papers), if god were real he would not allow that, unless he enjoyed watching stuff blow up
 
True believers have no compulsions, no need to prove a point, no need to argue, no digresssions. Just acceptance of what is. Obviously there aren't many true believers on the planet, about 100 in fact :p. The rest are disillusioned.


100? Really, are you one of them? May be I have misinterpreted this post, but if i've got the tone right I imagine you've been sniffing the magic markers whilst writing "the end of the world is nigh" type slogans on the sandwhich board you're wearing.
 
most wars are fought in the name of god (thats history not the papers),
No if you read history it's about conquering land, resources etc. Religion was used to rally the troops. So the reason for the war was not religion.

if god were real he would not allow that, unless he enjoyed watching stuff blow up

That does not proof anything and the reason why very much depends on the religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom