Poll: Who believes in God?

[semi-pro waster]

I do hold a logical position, where is there a flaw in any logic that says i should prove something before i try and disprove it. If you ask me to disprove the earth is round i will struggle, you ask me to disprove something that can not be proven in the first place, its virtually impossible, i have nothing to disprove? What evidence i do have i.e. the bible, has been disproven. Your inferring existence from lack of evidence against, not evidence for.

I'm not asking you to prove your standpoint, I'm simply pointing out that you can no more disprove a god than I can prove one exists. You have said that people shouldn't point out that your logic doesn't disprove the existence of a god but if you hold a truly logical viewpoint that is unquestionably correct then you shouldn't be worried about people pointing out the logical gaps. You say the religious (or anyone supporting their right to believe) should prove something that cannot be proven (at least at the present time) and I'm trying to show the futility of such a statement, it really is no better than kids saying "well I asked you first" in the playground.

You must see that it a very stupid stand point to base the existence of god on any of the written text on earth, rather than signs and demonstration from such a person.

Why is it any more or less stupid than denying it on the basis that it was written by human hand?

Im doing nothing of the such, im stating that atheism is the view point of a person who believe in the rational exercise of gathering evidence, and testing it. If that happens to come under the category of science then so be it.
It just also happens to be that atheist denounce god on that basis, then fine.
Imo atheist is a label stamped onto anyone who has weighed up the evidence and said that its a ridiculous misconception, were not a bunch of people all getting into groups and saying down with the believes, burn the christian, jews, etc etc, we just unfortunately get snowballed by religious stupidity because it conflicts with rational daily activities.

I think I'll refer you to my answer to Jet about the traditional definition of an atheist.

 

[Jet]

I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before, I know you've had the debate with Dolph certainly. Atheists tend to define their (lack of) belief pretty broadly for much the same reason that Christians (or any other group) do, they want to claim greater numbers support their viewpoint. Most traditional definitions of atheism stem from either an explicit or implicit denial or disbelief in a god or gods, that might not fit with what modern atheists wish to characterise themselves as but it is the definition I've always understood to be useful and used widely.

I don't think Richard Dawkins classifies atheism in that way because he wants to claim greater numbers. He does so because it's the logical, rational thing to do.

It is illogical to say god does not exist or I believe god does not exist because that then requires evidence and then faith.

The worlds most eminent scientists and academics would not classify themselves as atheists if it meant taking such an illogical stance. In some cases it would stand against their life's work.

Also, there is plenty of historical evidence for my definition.

Linguistic arguments over the correct definition of "atheism" will solve little, because -- as philosophers like to remind us -- questions of word-meaning are ultimately determined by conventional usage, not by the decrees of linguistic "experts." But conventional usage does not solve the problem either, for we may ask: whose usage? During the McCarthy era, for example, atheism was commonly linked to communism. What, then, were noncommunistic atheists to do? Should they have stepped forward and defied conventional usage, thereby incurring the wrath of McCarthy, his goons, and philosophers?

Those philosophers who rely solely on "conventional usage" should recall that "atheism" has been used throughout history as a term of opprobrium, a veritable smear word. Indeed, until the eighteenth century, an "atheist" could be anyone who disagreed with one's own religious convictions -- a person who denied the divinity of Roman emperors, or who disbelieved in witchcraft, or who denied the Trinity, or who rejected infant baptism, or who maintained that philosophers should be free to seek the truth, wherever it may lead them.

Perhaps atheists can find refuge from the tyranny of "conventional meaning" in what philosophers call "technical, definitions." Thus, biologists are permitted to offer their own definition of "life," for example, without being overly concerned whether laymen (the conventional majority) agree with, or even know of, their definition. Similarly, professed atheists may have the epistemological right to define atheism, in the technical sense, as the "absence of theistic belief," even if most laymen (i.e., theists) disagree with that definition.

I know we've debated this before but i wanted the chance to post it here so other people could see it.

 

[ChroniC]

What does "prove him" mean? Do you mean prove he exists? I thought you were on the other side of the argument.

I am on the other side, i don't believe in god, why because i've tried to prove him and found that the evidence tallies with other things. So i have come to the conclusion he does not.

The argument was not about what I believe, it was about people trying to declare God doesn't exist. The onus is on those who claim no God exists to substantiate their claim, which they can't.

But by association of my last point, i dont try to just simply disprove him, i try to prove him as it a more intelligent way to start disproving something, and as such the evidence suggested against it, heavily.

Not everything requires proof to be of use. Only fools would claim so.

Suggest something that is of everyday use to back up that sentence. Who are these fools? What are you talking about?

Your logic so far has been flawed, and several others have pointed this out too. You won't get any evidence which clearly shows I'm right, because you're the kind of person who rejects that which you cannot explain out of hand as an anomaly.

No one yet as far as i can tell has come up with a intelligent piece of proof to actually counter this anomolous you suggest. Im not some idiot that sits here and says oh i cant see radio waves so they must be fictional.
I just prefer to have my arguments countered by cleverly constructed uses of evidence that can change the way in which i think.
No one can every know everything, i can never study every subject on earth and then prove your all your arguements wrong, its impossible. However i can base the here and now on testable hypothesise, i will do untill such time as the hand of god crushes me because he hates me

Correct, because neither will be able to demonstrate his view effectively. You demand evidence off me, I demand the same off you. You can call me as illogical as you want, but until you stop asserting that your view is somehow more valid you'll be fighting a losing battle.

Most if not all perceptions of a god have stemed from creation. The want to know how we were created, how the earth was created no?
If not i think thats at least a very good place to start our hunt for the truth. If your as educated as you are trying to show, i would like to think that you know thier is plenty of evidence to answer those two questions.

Wrong. Again. That's exaclty what atheism is. This is getting tiresome now...

Love the way you stopped quoting me there on a comma.

You're really going to have to stop saying this, or at least clarify what you mean by this. You can't prove an object. I can't "disprove a football".

But you can prove one. Why would anyone live in a wordl where everything exists till disproved, it would be a very long and pointless endevour.

No-one's doing anything of the sort, or claiming to. But what you're claiming is that absence of evidence = evidence of absence which is a big no-no in science.

Says who, your making this up

Wrong. Again. That doesn't just come under the category of science, it IS science. Atheism on the other hand is faith in there being no God.

No its not, read the other post in this thread.

 

[ChroniC]

I'm not asking you to prove your standpoint, I'm simply pointing out that you can no more disprove a god than I can prove one exists.

That would be the case if were to just appear in the middle of no where with nothing around us and had this discussion. But is it not easy to see that we live in a world and that by analysing this world and all that is around it we can see conclusions to argement. I can tell your an agnostic, because even if i was to disprove all religious texts you can conclude that regardless, that tiny feeling that you have can't be disproved, and your right because it would be impossible to try i do not thave the tools or evidence to ever try, but i will stand on my side and you can stand on yours, in either case and wehat i think i would prefer is that everyone was atheist or agnostic. But i will not justify that as a reason a god exist i would assume it was your own faith, or a fear of the unknown.

You have said that people shouldn't point out that your logic doesn't disprove the existence of a god but if you hold a truly logical viewpoint that is unquestionably correct then you shouldn't be worried about people pointing out the logical gaps. You say the religious (or anyone supporting their right to believe) should prove something that cannot be proven (at least at the present time) and I'm trying to show the futility of such a statement, it really is no better than kids saying "well I asked you first" in the playground.

I think i see what your saying, but i have no faith, you have to have a bit of faith to be agnostic, i don't like faith as it is irrelevant to how i live my life, and as such the only other stand point is atheism.

Tbh if your agnostic then fine, there are little things in life that gut rench you into a fear like state of believing, some people choose to hold onto that, i dont care if you do, but to blindly believe the texts of religion is down right idiotic.
In either case i give up. Im going to bed.

 

[p4radox]

I am on the other side, i don't believe in god, why because i've tried to prove him and found that the evidence tallies with other things. So i have come to the conclusion he does not.

What other things? His non-existence?

But by association of my last point, i dont try to just simply disprove him, i try to prove him as it a more intelligent way to start disproving something, and as such the evidence suggested against it, heavily.

It's really hard to understand what you mean here. If you read that back to yourself, does it make sense to you?

If you're trying to say that there is evidence against a god existing, then once again I'll have to disagree with you.

Suggest something that is of everyday use to back up that sentence. Who are these fools? What are you talking about?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics has only recently been proven by quantum mechanics, yet without it the scientific advance seen in the last century would have been severely hindered.

The same can be seen for non-scientific areas. How can anyone debate the deep sense of well-being someone gets from prayer or meditation?

No one yet as far as i can tell has come up with a intelligent piece of proof to actually counter this anomolous you suggest. Im not some idiot that sits here and says oh i cant see radio waves so they must be fictional.

What about God then? That's exactly what you're doing...

I just prefer to have my arguments countered by cleverly constructed uses of evidence that can change the way in which i think.
No one can every know everything, i can never study every subject on earth and then prove your all your arguements wrong, its impossible. However i can base the here and now on testable hypothesise, i will do untill such time as the hand of god crushes me because he hates me

I doubt he'd do that, that'd put an end to this argument, which I'm sure he's enjoying.

Most if not all perceptions of a god have stemed from creation. The want to know how we were created, how the earth was created no?
If not i think thats at least a very good place to start our hunt for the truth. If your as educated as you are trying to show, i would like to think that you know thier is plenty of evidence to answer those two questions.

Which two questions? We've been here before: science provides a good model: the Big Bang. That doesn't mean God didn't trigger it...

Love the way you stopped quoting me there on a comma.

I've not quoted you out of context, don't claim it. That's exactly what you meant and you haven't been able to explain why you hold this view. It's quite clearly at odds with the actual definition.

But you can prove one.

You mean you can prove the existence of one? That still doesn't make sense in the original context.

Says who, your making this up

You claim that I look at the lack of empirical evidence for God and infer that he exists. I don't...

No its not, read the other post in this thread.

How can you claim this?

Answer me one question: Is atheism faith or not?

you have to have faith to be agnostic,

No you don't! You need to start taking on board what people are saying here...

 

[willhub]

Actually it does nothing of the sort.



Why can't that happen? the electrical signal in your brain cease. It's a perfectly good possibility that that's it.

Well I cant and wont believe thats it after, just does not seem right, I mean once your gone there has to be something, I cant even think that there is nothing it just seems so confusing and hard to get around.

 

[Spyhop]

Is there a something for a fly after it hits a windscreen, will?

 

[easyrider]

I think i see what your saying, but i have no faith, you have to have a bit of faith to be agnostic, i don't like faith as it is irrelevant to how i live my life, and as such the only other stand point is atheism.

Your faith in the non existence of God.

Why do you have to have a bit of faith to be agnostic?

And none to be atheist?

 

[yaboy]

I do.

 

[.:MBK:.]

Well I cant and wont believe thats it after, just does not seem right, I mean once your gone there has to be something, I cant even think that there is nothing it just seems so confusing and hard to get around.

which is probably why the concept of an afterlife was thought up, it is hard to envisage nothing, therefore you create something to explain what cannot be explained and prevent people from getting headaches every time they think about death (assuming that they believe in the views of their appropriate religion regarding life after death)

but then i feel certain religions were created solely as a method of mass control and creating a main purpose with which all can associate making people easier to guide and manipulate according to the whim of whichever leader is around at the time

Is there a higher being? no idea
Is there life after death? well, we'll find out when we get there, till then, no idea
Is there a true meaning to life? no idea (excluding all the life is what you make it lark)

questions that are not, atleast currently, within the realm of true human comprehension without making things up to fill in the blanks

 

[semi-pro waster]

I don't think Richard Dawkins classifies atheism in that way because he wants to claim greater numbers. He does so because it's the logical, rational thing to do.

It is illogical to say god does not exist or I believe god does not exist because that then requires evidence and then faith.

The worlds most eminent scientists and academics would not classify themselves as atheists if it meant taking such an illogical stance. In some cases it would stand against their life's work.

Logical and rational to classify it so if you want to call yourself an atheist and not be accused of taking a faith based position. The definition of agnosticism fitted perfectly well for the position of those unsure (or uncaring) about the existence of god(s) but atheism has always meant taking it a stage further and denying god(s).

Also, there is plenty of historical evidence for my definition.

Linguistic arguments over the correct definition of "atheism" will solve little, because -- as philosophers like to remind us -- questions of word-meaning are ultimately determined by conventional usage, not by the decrees of linguistic "experts." But conventional usage does not solve the problem either, for we may ask: whose usage? During the McCarthy era, for example, atheism was commonly linked to communism. What, then, were noncommunistic atheists to do? Should they have stepped forward and defied conventional usage, thereby incurring the wrath of McCarthy, his goons, and philosophers?

Those philosophers who rely solely on "conventional usage" should recall that "atheism" has been used throughout history as a term of opprobrium, a veritable smear word. Indeed, until the eighteenth century, an "atheist" could be anyone who disagreed with one's own religious convictions -- a person who denied the divinity of Roman emperors, or who disbelieved in witchcraft, or who denied the Trinity, or who rejected infant baptism, or who maintained that philosophers should be free to seek the truth, wherever it may lead them.

Perhaps atheists can find refuge from the tyranny of "conventional meaning" in what philosophers call "technical, definitions." Thus, biologists are permitted to offer their own definition of "life," for example, without being overly concerned whether laymen (the conventional majority) agree with, or even know of, their definition. Similarly, professed atheists may have the epistemological right to define atheism, in the technical sense, as the "absence of theistic belief," even if most laymen (i.e., theists) disagree with that definition.

I know we've debated this before but i wanted the chance to post it here so other people could see it.

I'm a layman certainly since I'm no theologian but I'm also not a theist and I'm just going on the definitions I always have (and there is evidence for them as well if it comes to that). If atheists choose to reclassify themselves because it suits themselves to do so then that is their choice but they shouldn't be unduly surprised if other people don't agree with them - any group which tries to redefine words used to describe them can hardly said to be an entirely unbiased party.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I dont understand, lack of belief is not a broad term, you either do or dont.
I think what your saying is that people who chose to study the evidence and make a sensible conclusion are tarred with the same brush as those who blinded just say i don't believe.

So if you don't believe then you are an atheist? Fine, but it is a faith based position. What you deem as a sensible conclusion is not automatically the same for everyone else, even if you only view exactly the same evidence.

Snipped for space...But i will not justify that as a reason a god exist i would assume it was your own faith, or a fear of the unknown.

I think i see what your saying, but i have no faith, you have to have a bit of faith to be agnostic, i don't like faith as it is irrelevant to how i live my life, and as such the only other stand point is atheism.

Tbh if your agnostic then fine, there are little things in life that gut rench you into a fear like state of believing, some people choose to hold onto that, i dont care if you do, but to blindly believe the texts of religion is down right idiotic.
In either case i give up. Im going to bed.

Agnosticism requires no faith. If you want to call it fear of the unknown then it is no skin off my nose but it has nothing to do with faith, to make a definitive statement about something that you cannot test for is simply not logical - that is why to state there is no god is a position of faith.

 

[Shoseki]

Your faith in the non existence of God.

Why do you have to have a bit of faith to be agnostic?

And none to be atheist?

You don't have to have faith in anything to be agnostic. As I explained in my earlier post, I would be atheist but I belief that atheism cuts out too much without due cause, science, backing etc. We create systems all the time, but are also part of a system, its not hard to imagine something higher level doing the same.

How anyone thinks "worshipping" the higher level entity is supposed to achieve, I don't understand. If ants started worshipping us, would we care?

 

[willhub]

which is probably why the concept of an afterlife was thought up, it is hard to envisage nothing, therefore you create something to explain what cannot be explained and prevent people from getting headaches every time they think about death (assuming that they believe in the views of their appropriate religion regarding life after death)

but then i feel certain religions were created solely as a method of mass control and creating a main purpose with which all can associate making people easier to guide and manipulate according to the whim of whichever leader is around at the time

Is there a higher being? no idea
Is there life after death? well, we'll find out when we get there, till then, no idea
Is there a true meaning to life? no idea (excluding all the life is what you make it lark)

questions that are not, atleast currently, within the realm of true human comprehension without making things up to fill in the blanks

Maybe peoples spirits are recycled, so we are just reborn as something but we dont have any knowledge of our last life, you get some people claim they remember a life before this life but I think they may well be making that up. I guess there would be some answer to what happens just our brains cant process it, I mean like the question, what was here before the universe? I mean was time here forever? I mean how did everything start? It must have been going forever, but that cant be possible, the universe has not been here forever, but everything has a start but the odd thing is time must have been here forever, see It confuses me thinking it I'm just going in loops here.

 

[Judge]

Personally i'm an athiest, i simply cannot believe in a god when there is not a single shred of proof that one exists. Please note that i respect other peoples decisions on whatever they believe and have no problem at all with that. These are simply my opinions so respect these too please:

- Too much violence is done in the name of religion (fact)

- If a person were to write the bible today, it would be taken as nonsense. So why just because it was written 2000 years ago does it make it believeable and true ?

- Where is the original bible ?, surely something as valuable as that would have been kept safe.

- If god created the earth, and then man on the 7th day then why is man only a few thousand years old. Whereas dinosaurs which we know existed have been around for millions of years ?. Surely this would mean that dinosaurs existed before man and the earth was created which is impossible.


- If J. K. Rowling had written harry potter 2000 years ago, does this mean that today we would all believe in wizards, and that if we spent our lives learning magic we would then eventually get to go to hogwarts ? (Sounds silly, but why is it so different ?)

- Finally, if god can exist then why don't we belive in unicorns, vampires or the lochness monster for example.

 

[SourChipmunk]

Maybe peoples spirits are recycled, so we are just reborn as something but we dont have any knowledge of our last life, you get some people claim they remember a life before this life but I think they may well be making that up.

I swear I have memories from childhood, dreams about places I've never been to that actually exist (stangely, usually Universities). People tend to think I must have seen it on TV, but that was long before our family even had a TV.

 

[MookJong]

This is what I believe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeists

 

[semi-pro waster]

Personally i'm an athiest, i simply cannot believe in a god when there is not a single shred of proof that one exists. Please note that i respect other peoples decisions on whatever they believe and have no problem at all with that. These are simply my opinions so respect these too please:

- Too much violence is done in the name of religion (fact)

Too much violence is done randomly (fact). Religion is simply a convenient banner to hang much on, a lot of the violence and atrocities committed in the name of religion would probably have been carried out regardless, there would simply have to be another cause to rally people round. It isn't however an excuse for the violence by any stretch.

- If a person were to write the bible today, it would be taken as nonsense. So why just because it was written 2000 years ago does it make it believeable and true ?

- If J. K. Rowling had written harry potter 2000 years ago, does this mean that today we would all believe in wizards, and that if we spent our lives learning magic we would then eventually get to go to hogwarts ? (Sounds silly, but why is it so different ?)

- Where is the original bible ?, surely something as valuable as that would have been kept safe.

Perhaps it would be regarded as nonsense, perhaps not but you have to remember the historical context here. Same with Harry Potter, people might worship wizards, they might not but anything here is merest speculation.

Valuable relics get lost/damaged/stolen, it happens, it is unfortunate but that is part of life. It could have been lost in the various purges that occurred, it could have been destroyed during a period of infighting in the church. You should also remember that the Bible is a collection of accounts from many different sources so when you speak of an original Bible what do you mean? The first collection of them? The King James Edition? Something else entirely?

- If god created the earth, and then man on the 7th day then why is man only a few thousand years old. Whereas dinosaurs which we know existed have been around for millions of years ?. Surely this would mean that dinosaurs existed before man and the earth was created which is impossible.

There are a few possible explanations including (but not limited to): the "days" refers to time periods, not specific 24 hour periods; the bones were put there to test peoples faith; the story of Creation is fictional and/or is meant to be read as allegorical; you have a god who interferes with every carbon dating test to make it seem consistent.

I'm not suggesting that all or even any of the above are true but if you start from the premise of accepting there could be an all powerful god then they are possible.

- Finally, if god can exist then why don't we belive in unicorns, vampires or the lochness monster for example.

Some people do believe in them.

You appear to be looking for absolutes here, I don't know that any exist but if you want them then you have to put your faith in something be it religion or atheism. You appear to have picked atheism which is fine but it is still a form of faith - as long as you allow others to believe what they wish then that is great, more people should do the same.

 

[Jet]

Logical and rational to classify it so if you want to call yourself an atheist and not be accused of taking a faith based position. The definition of agnosticism fitted perfectly well for the position of those unsure (or uncaring) about the existence of god(s) but atheism has always meant taking it a stage further and denying god(s).

I don't understand the first sentence. Agnosticism, imo and many others', is not an alternative to atheism. Agnosticism concerns itself with knowledge and not belief. If you're an agnostic, you assert that there is no possibility of proving or disproving the existence of God but that doesn't show what you actually believe. Hence why there is agnostic atheism and agnostic theism. In my opinion they don't deal with the same things.

And as I've already shown, atheism has not always meant anything. There is loads of evidence for both our definitions. I chose to use the one that the worlds most prominent, 'professional' atheists use rather than the common man. Just as I would use scientific definitions made by scientists rather than the common man.

I'm a layman certainly since I'm no theologian but I'm also not a theist and I'm just going on the definitions I always have (and there is evidence for them as well if it comes to that). If atheists choose to reclassify themselves because it suits themselves to do so then that is their choice but they shouldn't be unduly surprised if other people don't agree with them - any group which tries to redefine words used to describe them can hardly said to be an entirely unbiased party.

I agree there is evidence for your definition but there is for mine and I've explained why I chose the definition I did. And again, atheists haven't re-classified themselves at all. The links above show a historical and modern definition that matches mine; it's never been clean cut and there has never been a consensus.

If there was a rule that atheism could only mean your definition then most 'professional' atheists would probably make up a new word since atheism would not describe their views anymore. They don't because they define it differently and it would be a hassle to change just because the layman defined it differently.

 

[yantorsen]

a single shred of proof

intresting phrase.