Poll: What is your religion?

[Dolph]

That is a look at the definition of Atheism, I am happy with the definition of Atheism, my post was what is the definition of a god. Before I can decide whether or not I believe that there may or may not be a god, I need to understand what we are defining a god as. What attributes would be required to be defined as a god.

That's bordering on ignotiscism, which is basically the view that the concept of god needs to be suitably defined before it can be considered at all.

 

[Dolph]

Yeah I dont mind people talking to me about it, its when they start ranting and getting bothered about my thoughts that annoys me. I always end up feeling like they are trying to push their beliefs onto me and that I am somehow wrong if I dont agree with them

I think that annoys everyone, the issue is that most people do not see arguments they agree with as 'pushing beliefs', whereas those opposing them certainly are. It is why most atheists complain about theists pushing their views, and most theists complain about atheists (and other theists with different beliefs) pushing theirs.

 

[Strawberry]

Those were surprising results, I was expecting the majority to be Christian.

Then again, Christians probably aren't the type that ends up posting regularily on a forum about computers.

 

[Tombstone]

That's bordering on ignotiscism, which is basically the view that the concept of god needs to be suitably defined before it can be considered at all.

Ah yes, I've just read up on Ignosticism and that is pretty close to me. You're quite right. What is a god must be defined before I could state whether I believe that one exists.

So I amend my original response... I am an Ignostic.

 

[Strebor]

i think a couple of things need clearing up.

Atheism - you do not believe in any God or gods.

Agnosticism - you are not sure whether there is or isn't a god, whether that is because you haven't thought about it, don't much care or cannot make a judgement due to limited evidence doesn't matter.

Theist - you believe in a God or gods

Religious person - someone who follows a religion and it's teachings

When you look at it, you can see that it is possible to be a theist without being religious, it is perfectly fine to say that you are not religious but you believe in a god.

Another thing is that it is virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, saying "prove that there is no god" is like saying "prove that there are no unicorns", i can never disprove the existance of unicorns - i assume that they do not exist because i have never seen one or seen any compelling evidence to suggest that they do exist, but it is impossible to be sure that on another planet in another galaxy, there don't exist four legged animals with horns. the same can be said for God, we can't disprove his existence, only look at the evidence and make a personal judgement.

 

[Paul_cz]

I like what Joss Whedon said when they asked him if there is a god:

"Absolutely not. And I think it is a very important thing to learn."

 

[LordSplodge]

Good to see the number of rational-minded people here far outnumber the irrational.

Religious person != irrational person.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Religious person != irrational person.

In my mind, a "Theist/Deist == Irrational person". You cannot be of rational mind to believe something exists with not a shred of proof.

 

[semi-pro waster]

In my mind, a "Theist/Deist == Irrational person". You cannot be of rational mind to believe something exists with not a shred of proof.

Proof exists as has been stated multiple times, it may not be proof that you accept (or I accept for that matter) but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Dolph]

In my mind, a "Theist/Deist == Irrational person". You cannot be of rational mind to believe something exists with not a shred of proof.

Then you need to learn the meaning of rationality, because rationality only implies that the conclusion is consistent with the data and assumptions used by the person making the decision.

That you take assumptions to be true or relevant that others do not does not make them irrational.

 

[Strawberry]

Assuming that no God exists is just as irrational as assuming one exists.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Proof exists as has been stated multiple times,

Where?
I would like to see this 'proof'.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Proof exists as has been stated multiple times, it may not be proof that you accept (or I accept for that matter) but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

There isn't any tangible proof that there is a god.

Then you need to learn the meaning of rationality, because rationality only implies that the conclusion is consistent with the data and assumptions used by the person making the decision.

I think I already know the meaning. The textbook definition of rationality is to be consistent with or based on or using reason. Being rational is the opposite of following gut or emotional instinct.

How can the conclusion that a god exists be consistent with the data (therefore rational), of which there is nothing tangible, and the majority of people arguing for the existence of their deity invoke arguments of 'faith' and other emotional, intangible pieces (which is the exact opposite of rationality)?

Assuming that no God exists is just as irrational as assuming one exists.

I see what you are saying, and I agree with your sentiment, but that is not irrationality. Look above for the dictionary definition of rationality, which is to consider a conclusion that is consistent with logic or evidence. Based on the evidence (or lack of) we have so far, it is rational to conclude that there is no god.

If I told you that a teapot orbits the moon, would you be irrational to disbelieve that? No you wouldn't - because based on the complete lack of evidence that a teapot does orbit the moon, coming to the conclusion that one does not is perfectly rational.

 

[Dolph]

There isn't any tangible proof that there is a god.


The textbook definition of rationality is to be consistent with or based on or using reason. Being rational is the opposite of following gut or emotional instinct.

How can the conclusion that a god exists be consistent with the data, of which there is nothing tangible?

Because a lack of evidence you will accept is not the same as a complete lack of evidence?

I see what you are saying, and I agree with your sentiment, but that is not irrationality. Look above for the dictionary definition of rationality, which is to consider a conclusion that is consistent with logic or evidence. Based on the evidence (or lack of) we have so far, it is rational to conclude that there is no god.

Not without faith in the assumption that we would have found the evidence in the first place...

If I told you that a teapot orbits the moon, would you be irrational to disbelieve that? No you wouldn't - because based on the complete lack of evidence that a teapot does orbit the moon, coming to the conclusion that one does not is perfectly rational.

Surely that depends on whether you are sure the evidence would have been found?

 

[Naffa]

Assuming that no God exists is just as irrational as assuming one exists.

Seriously?

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times... The default atheist stance isn't "there is no God', we merely say there's no evidence to suggest there is. It may not be said that there is no God, just as it may not be said there is.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Because a lack of evidence you will accept is not the same as a complete lack of evidence?

I don't understand what this "evidence you accept" argument is all about. Evidence is measurable, repeatable and quantifiable. Pure evidence is to one person what it is to another (not to be confused with, say, circumstantial evidence).

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Surely that depends on whether you are sure the evidence would have been found?

No, because the default logical position is that X is not until proven.

 

[Naffa]

I don't understand what this "evidence you accept" argument is all about. Evidence is measurable, repeatable and quantifiable. Pure evidence is to one person what it is to another (not to be confused with, say, circumstantial evidence).

Exactly. It ties in with this whole notion of 'individual truth', which again, is ridiculous (in my eyes). Something is either true, or it isn't true.

I.e. The existence of God.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Where?
I would like to see this 'proof'.

And I'm delighted to be able to offer you the chance to see it - find your nearest bible and start reading. That's proof that God exists. The millions of believers (from memory it's around 1 billion for the various forms of Christianity) are also proof.

Neither of those things (or any others) may convince you but that doesn't alter that they are proof.

There isn't any tangible proof that there is a god.

So you're changing it then, first it is there is "not a shred of proof" and now it is "tangible proof". What would constitute tangible proof for you? Bearing in mind that if you choose to define things so narrowly then it may be impossible for anything to meet your particular standard - that doesn't necessarily imply that you are correct in applying it.

 

[Tombstone]

I still think what a god is needs to be defined before anyone can decide if they think there is one or not. For instance many leaders in the past were considered gods, in fact I believe there is actually a people that believes that Prince Phillip is a god...so I guess technically we could say there is a god. Unless we more specifically define what it is that we are saying counts as a god.