Poll: What is your position on religion/god?

What are your religious beliefs?

  • Christian

    Votes: 29 10.2%

  • Muslim

    Votes: 7 2.5%

  • Jewish

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Buddhist

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Hindu

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Sikh

    Votes: 2 0.7%

  • Deist

    Votes: 3 1.1%

  • Agnostic

    Votes: 74 26.1%

  • Pantheist

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • Atheist

    Votes: 159 56.2%
  • Total voters
    283
I'd generally say atheist.

But given that there has already been some dispute about what atheism is, I should say that I do not actively reject the existence of deities. I simply do not believe in one. But that does not preclude the rejection of specific god concepts as they are presented to me.
 
King Damager said:
Agnostic.

Frankly, there's not enough proof for either
Click to expand...

This.

Don't know how anyone can be an atheist in the sense that it has the traits of being religious. Religious people have a firm belief something is there, atheists have a firm belief that something isn't there, but its impossible, currently, to prove either way.

Agnostics, just don't know really and thats were I stand.

EDIT: /\ basically what easyrider just said.
 
easyrider said:
All the Atheist's convinced of no God...Just as religious as someone convinced there is a god.
Click to expand...

Learn the difference between positive atheism and negative atheism please, they are completely different. Most atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they just don't believe on exists ( negative atheism). Positive atheism is where you claim that there is no god, which is pretty much faith based.
 
AcidHell2 said:
There are so many variations of atheism and not one can be defined as the standard, which is why people should explain what they mean, when stating they are atheists.
Click to expand...

Okay then, i'm an Atheist. But i believe that all religions should be given a fair chance. They should prepare a paper detailing their proposal, the thinking behind it and the evidence for it. They should then push to get this paper published in a reputable scientific journal, to be read and scrutinized by the community. If it is found that their theory holds up; that there are no errors in the methods used as proof, gaping holes in the thinking or unexplainable contradictions with currently accepted scientific 'knowledge' then they should be allowed to live on as popular scientific theories, with the same privileges as any other. This includes the freedom for others to debate it, and most certainly does not include the vast accumulation of wealth, extravagant buildings and specialized schools for indoctrinating children against the majority of accepted science. If they don't then they should call it a day and come up with a better theory.

That's what science is all about - coming up with as many ideas as possible, whittling away the rubbish until you're left with what can only be described as 'the truth'. In my mind the fact that we'll never actually get to that point makes it all the better. Anything pretending to be independent of these methods, or that the idea of eliminating bias does not apply to is counter to this, and such is counter to the progression of humanity. It only does so because it wouldn't last ten minutes as a 'proper' scientific proposal.
 
chaosdestro0 said:
Learn the difference between positive atheism and negative atheism please, they are completely different. Most atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they just don't believe on exists ( negative atheism). Positive atheism is where you claim that there is no god, which is pretty much faith based.
Click to expand...

Most people don't know the difference and very few people explain what they mean, so I'm not sure how you can say most are one and not the other.
 
PermaBanned said:
Okay then, i'm an Atheist. But i believe that all religions should be given a fair chance. They should prepare a paper detailing their proposal, the thinking behind it and the evidence for it. They should then push to get this paper published in a reputable scientific journal, to be read and scrutinized by the community. If it is found that their theory holds up; that there are no errors in the methods used as proof, gaping holes in the thinking or unexplainable contradictions with currently accepted scientific 'knowledge' then they should be allowed to live on as popular scientific theories, with the same privileges as any other. This includes the freedom for others to debate it, and most certainly does not include the vast accumulation of wealth, extravagant buildings and specialized schools for indoctrinating children against the majority of accepted science. If they don't then they should call it a day and come up with a better theory.

That's what science is all about - coming up with as many ideas as possible, whittling away the rubbish until you're left with what can only be described as 'the truth'. In my mind the fact that we'll never actually get to that point makes it all the better. Anything pretending to be independent of these methods, or that the idea of eliminating bias does not apply to is counter to this, and such is counter to the progression of humanity. It only does so because it wouldn't last ten minutes as a 'proper' scientific proposal.
Click to expand...

A deity does not have to be linked to any religion.
Science is not all powerful, it is based on many assumptions and principles.
Even most religiuse people don't want faith to be encorparated within the scientific model. That is just rideculus. But again the scientific model isn't the be all of end all.
 
Last edited:
chaosdestro0 said:
Most atheists don't claim that there isn't a deity, they just don't believe on exists ( negative atheism). Positive atheism is where you claim that there is no god, which is pretty much faith based.
Click to expand...

So there might be a god I just don't believe it = Faith

There is no God= Faith
 
AcidHell2 said:
A deity does not have to be linked to any religion.
Science is not all powerful, it is based on many assumptions and principles.
Even most religiuse people don't want faith to be encouraged with in the scientific model. That is just rideculus. But again the scientific model isn't the be all of end all.
Click to expand...

Science is the same as religion.

The truth to existence is based on faith and both Science and GOD are just two diffent paths to take.

They are the same
 
AcidHell2 said:
Most people don't know the difference and very few people explain what they mean, so I'm not sure how you can say most are one and not the other.
Click to expand...
Well, I have hardly seen any positive atheists around. Most of the famous atheists such as Dawkins, seem to be negative atheists and most people I have spoken to are negative atheists. Anecdotal evidence but it's the best I can do.
 
AcidHell2 said:
:confused:
You still can't define what one is, in reference to scientific model and how you would test for any such things you have defined.

So dictionary reference is useless, you still can't define a deity and if you can, you would win a Nobel prize.
Click to expand...

I don't have to define a huge pink pig to know that there isn't one either. I know what you're getting at, you want me to prove that there's no deity, and I can't, but I'm saying that since you can't prove there IS a deity that's good enough for me.
 
I'm a Atheist/Anti-theist, but I have no problem getting on with Christian and Muslim friends and I don't talk about it unless asked. It's about being a decent person and respecting other people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom