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
Mr^B said:
People seem to be confusing the concept of "God" with that of "religion".

God as a creator is a wholly logical concept, discount the fact that he appears in human texts in human form, that's your own prejudices coming from earth religions. Somehow the laws of physics were created, somehow EVERYTHING was created, even if it's merely physical laws and then a "big bang" button was pushed just to see if it would all work out.

ANY scientist will accede to this fact, there's a point where the laws they are studying would either break down completely (inside a black-hole) or not apply (pre-big-bang conditions). Hawking has a whole chapter in "Brief History" regarding God's place in the universe...

We're arguing metaphysics here, NOT religion. Anyone who brings up religion in a debate about "God" is already biased. God does not need religion, but religion needs God.

:)
Click to expand...
I agree with that. It's not the idea of God in principle that I disagree with, take away the religion aspect and I have no more reason to believe there is a God, a supreme being, than I do to believe there isn't. We just have literally no way of knowing this. To ever think that we as a race would know even a small fraction of what the entire universe has to offer is wishful thinking. In that sense it's entirely reasonable to at least concede the posibility of a "God".

It's the God that organized religion puts forward that I absolutely do not believe in, the God that chooses who goes where based on how you live your life. I don't believe in ghosts, but as far as I'm concerned there's far more evidence to believe in them over religion and their Gods. So when people do denounce God along with religion, it's not necessarily the entire concept of God that they're rejecting (though obviously it could be in some cases), it's the God that religion is presenting them with.

Whatever it is nobody knows, not a bunch of morons thousands of years ago, and not the people that follow their teachings today. While nobody knows, I think we probably all at some point wonder and hope there is something else beyond what we do know. Whatever that is, we're either all in, or it just doesn't exist.
 
I think you mean "metaphysical" rather than "metorphorical" (sic.). And I have already stated that I, personally, think of the concept of God in terms of metaphysics, rather than religious.

:)

And if God needs to be created, who created God?

Interesting questions that "science" will never answer.

:)
 
Mr^B said:
I think you mean "metaphysical" rather than "metorphorical" (sic.).
Click to expand...

If you mean me... then I did mean metaphorical (sp). As in talking about God as a metaphor for the creation of the universe and essentially everything that we do not currently understand.
 
RDM said:
In other words you can't. If you are just going to make rubbish up, why should anyone listen to you?
Click to expand...

No, I just seriously can't be bothered to waste my time on a narrow minded arrogant person like yourself. I'm gonig to spain now, take care.
 
nightwish said:
If you mean me... then I did mean metaphorical (sp). As in talking about God as a metaphor for the creation of the universe and essentially everything that we do not currently understand.
Click to expand...

You mean "metaphysical", certainly in terms of how the top-end scientists view God, or the concept of God.

"Metaphor" means something altogether different, and does not mean an abstract concept (God) as a way of trying to understand the nature of the universe (which is most definitely "metaphysics").

:)
 
Mr^B said:
You mean "metaphysical", certainly in terms of how the top-end scientists view God, or the concept of God.

"Metaphor" means something altogether different, and does not mean an abstract concept (God) as a way of trying to understand the nature of the universe (which is most definitely "metaphysics").

:)
Click to expand...

Humm OK then.. guess I have to go and look up those definitions then! :o:p
 
wedgie said:
Oh I know, I wasn't for a second suggesting that was an argument ending video, it was just something I came accross so I posted it. There's actually a response video to it as well, which I think most people on the other side of the fence will find deals with it adequately.

My problems with religion go far beyond the pretty basic questions posed in the vid, but that and the response vid do highlight that it is essentially an impossible argument for a non believer to win. I don't think there's anything you could put to a religious person that they wouldn't be able to come up with a religious explanation that they deemed satisfactory. I just don't think they're open to any explanation other than one they can find within their own belief.
Click to expand...

And equally non-believers frequently aren't open to the idea that the religious explanation could be right.

wedgie said:
Which brings us to the bible itself; there are so many holes in it that it's amazing anyone gives it a single shred of credibility. It's no more than the writings of primitive (basically stupid) men. Men that took almost everything at face value (although strangely enough one of the most common defences of the bible is that you don't take it at face value). You don't have to go too far back to find people being burned at the steak for being witches. Go back a couple thousand years and we're getting to the time where almost anything significant happening was seen as the direct hand of God. Some civilizations even had different Gods within the same religion. Hot summer, need rain, give God a call. And of course when it inevitibly does rain, it's Gods work. My point is, to put it kindly these people were stupid. I need much, much more than the words of frankly a bunch of idiots 2000+ years ago to go by if I'm going to accept religion. The bible is no more believable to me as it is with millions subscribing to it, than it would be if it existed but not a single person took it seriously. But the fact that so many people do hold it in high regard makes it very believable for anyone looking to believe it.
Click to expand...

The Bible is not equal to all religion though, it is part of a religion which is rather different. You even refer to other civilisations and religions in that paragraph so you are aware of this and should therefore take a bit of care when referring to religion.

wedgie said:
And then the final nail in the coffin. Let's say that even with all the inconsistencies within the same religion, one of them is actually true. At most it can only be one, so we can already say of all the religions, all but one is BS. That leaves a whole lot of people who would die for what they believe wrong already. Either you have to pray 10 times a day to get to heaven or you don't, either you have to accept Jesus to get to heaven or you don't. I just don't see this middle ground that even many religious people seem to fall in.
Click to expand...

Why does there have to be only one religion that is right? Could there not be more than one that is wholly or partially correct but all just coming at it from slightly different angles that suit(ed) the prevailing culture of the time. There could be several referring to the same god but under different names and with different methods of worship. Take a simple example - Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, Karakoncolos or Hibagon - all names that refer to a hominid style creature in local folklore. What if the same is possible for religion?

wedgie said:
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, like I said, I don't think that's possible. Those are just some of the more immediate things that come to mind when I consider religion.
Click to expand...

I'd agree on that, I doubt anyone here is likely to change their mind much, if at all, but it is still a fascinating subject.
 
yantorsen said:
No, I just seriously can't be bothered to waste my time on a narrow minded arrogant person like yourself. I'm gonig to spain now, take care.
Click to expand...

You seem to be mistaking me for someone else. As I am agnostic surely you are the more narrow minded one as you have picked an answer and say "This is right"?
 
Nitefly said:
If you think that God can do anything and exists outside of our logic, then not necessarily.
Click to expand...
well that would contradict the point i quoted because the universe is outside of our logic also, applying theories like that would just lead you round in a vicious circle
 
yantorsen said:
spoken like a true atheist
Click to expand...

Hmm, you know nothing about me at all so how can you come up with assumptions like that?

And actually I didnt mean anything by it, just thought you would want to elaborate on that persons point more. You do "appear" to be more religious than most on this in terms of knowing stuff so I would like to hear you replies as I am interested

(If you would like to know, then I take a sort of agnostic approach, I like the concept of God, but then theres so many things in the world that surely would count against it? - Like all these teenage killings, poverty, killings of civilians in Zimbawbe for example. "Why?") - Surely this is a counter-arguement against an existance of a God, because why does this happen?
 
Last edited:
semi-pro waster said:
And equally non-believers frequently aren't open to the idea that the religious explanation could be right.
Click to expand...
I guess some might, I'd class myself as open to all possibilities. However, I just can't go by faith alone. I need more than that, and much more than any religion currently offers.
semi-pro waster said:
The Bible is not equal to all religion though, it is part of a religion which is rather different. You even refer to other civilisations and religions in that paragraph so you are aware of this and should therefore take a bit of care when referring to religion.
Click to expand...
Yes, the point I was making there (and by bringing up other civilizations) was that these texts were written by humans that are so far removed from us today that they might as well be another species. People that had such a limited understanding of their world, that to give special significance to any of their writings makes no sense to me. It's just about as untrustworthy a source as you could ever hope to find.

semi-pro waster said:
Why does there have to be only one religion that is right? Could there not be more than one that is wholly or partially correct but all just coming at it from slightly different angles that suit(ed) the prevailing culture of the time. There could be several referring to the same god but under different names and with different methods of worship. Take a simple example - Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti, Karakoncolos or Hibagon - all names that refer to a hominid style creature in local folklore. What if the same is possible for religion?
Click to expand...
If more than one is partially accurate, then to me that just means none is actually right. Again, it's this halfway house that so many seem to fall in. I don't believe a God would have such a mixed up, almost entirely ambiguous message to give. Most religions do have basically the same message, but it's the subtle differences that mean they might as well be completely different to me. Say if one religions asks that you stand on your left foot for 10 minutes a day to get into heaven, and one asks you to stand on your right foot for 10 minutes a day to get into heaven; They may be very similar in every aspect, but all I see there is that at best, only one of those can be true. If God was to require us to lead our lives in certain ways for him to accept us, then the specifics of this are important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom