Poll: What is your position on religion/god?

[Randomface74]

Surly default would be closer to agnostic. Atheism requires some sort of faith.
Agnotiscim, doesn't care, no prove, unprovable either way.

That's the point. If moving from the default to another option requires proof or faith, and I argue that being Atheist requires no proof or faith, then Atheist is the default in my view - not Agnostic.

That's why I confidently say that I'm Atheist and I don't have faith. I've made no adjustment from what I consider to be the correct default.

 

[Randomface74]

The default position on everything is "we don't know".

My default position on everything is "it's not there until you prove it is".

 

[Scania]

Religion?

Something society tends to follow yet if we used common sence, we'd have left it in the past where it belongs.

 

[Dolph]

My default position on everything is "it's not there until you prove it is".

So it's faith in logical positivism being an absolute then, or in other words, 'if I don't see it, it doesn't exist'.

This does require faith that everything is observable and we are using the right observation tools for everything that could possibly exist...

Incidentally, how does it feel to contradict science, where the default position is 'we know nothing until we've identified an hypothesis, designed a structured protocol, then tested it to validate the hypothesis or the null hypothesis'.

Science never assumes the null hypothesis is true in the absence of testing.

 

[TechFunctions]

Atheist

 

[Randomface74]

Faith is a trust in truth. Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel

If I'm the beholder, then I don't need faith to be Atheist.
If you're the beholder, I do.

The main reason I think my default is correct is that everyone's born with a blank slate. No understanding of anything or any beliefs. As such, "non-existance" is everyone's default.

So what proof do you require that things exist? (the process of learning)

Food... you see it.
Moon... you see it.
Great wall of China... most just trust that it's there, but you could go see it if you wanted.
Atoms... most people don't ever get to see them, but trust the scientific community - which is a reliable source as they cross-check each other.
God... umn?

 

[Randomface74]

If you were born with "dunno" as your default you'd never get on two feet, you'd be too busy disproving anything you can imagine!

 

[Stretch]

Incidentally, how does it feel to contradict science, where the default position is 'we know nothing until we've identified an hypothesis, designed a structured protocol, then tested it to validate the hypothesis or the null hypothesis'.

This is true, however there is little or no good science conducted in the area.

Can I ask whether you have you made a choice to partake in any religious activities or associate yourself with a particular religious group?

 

[awinchurch]

Im a Pastafarian

 

[Castiel]

Whilst we're on the subject, what does Castiel actually mean? Does it mean anything?

Aside from the Supernatural TV Series (the origin of my username...blame the wife) Castiel is first mentioned as an Angel in the 13thC grimoire written by Peter de Abano which allegedly set out rites able to bring forth specific Angels on specific days, Castiel was the Angel brought forth on Thursday.

The Grimoire was called the Heptameron.


There are a bunch of Enochian references, the Hebrew Theophory of the name is uncertain and is generally ascribed to 'My Cover is God' but the etymology is attributed to several different origins, including being a form of Cassiel.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Religion and OCUK. A veritable treasure trove of I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK, HERE IS THE TRUTH AND I WILL KILL YOU IF YOU DISAGREE.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The main reason I think my default is correct is that everyone's born with a blank slate. No understanding of anything or any beliefs. As such, "non-existance" is everyone's default.

So what proof do you require that things exist? (the process of learning)
Snipped for space

The default logical position until you can test something is and should be that you don't know the veracity of the claim. If you want to have another default position then that's not a problem in most circumstances but be aware that you've moved away from it being the logical default to being a position that you prefer for whatever reason.

If you don't believe in things because you can't see them then what about mavity as a common example? Bearing in mind what you see when you drop something and it falls to the ground is not mavity but simply the effect of mavity acting on something.

 

[Daze]

I find it too hard to believe, so I don't.

 

[Randomface74]

If you don't believe in things because you can't see them then what about mavity as a common example? Bearing in mind what you see when you drop something and it falls to the ground is not mavity but simply the effect of mavity acting on something.

It's not as simple as believing only what you see, that would be silly!

Everyone's born not believing in mavity. Then you realise stuff falls. Then someone teaches you about it in school and you know how to refer to it, what evidence exists, etc. Do most people get to check if it's down to mass attracting other mass - no, as far as most of us are concerned that could all be made up, and that's fine.

How does a new-born come to the conclusion that a deity exists?

 

[Randomface74]

Religion and OCUK. A veritable treasure trove of I DO NOT CARE WHAT YOU THINK, HERE IS THE TRUTH AND I WILL KILL YOU IF YOU DISAGREE.

That's why I'm proactive - Antitheist.

If religious folk argue their case.
Agnostic people don't argue anything.
And Atheists let religious folk do what they like.

Then the overall sway is towards religious folk.

It should be an Atheist's duty to be proactive - Antitheist - because religion has caused an overwhelming amount of bad compared to the good - not least to say that all religious folk are living a lie! By the same logic, one is therefore also defined as a Humanist.

IMO - All true Atheists are Antitheists AND Humanists. *shrug*

 

[semi-pro waster]

It's not as simple as believing only what you see, that would be silly!

That was pretty much exactly what you said in your examples, you see stuff and you believe in it.

Everyone's born not believing in mavity. Then you realise stuff falls. Then someone teaches you about it in school and you know how to refer to it, what evidence exists, etc. Do most people get to check if it's down to mass attracting other mass - no, as far as most of us are concerned that could all be made up, and that's fine.

Everyone might be born not knowing about mavity but that's not exactly the same as not believing in it. To express belief about an idea, a concept or the existence of something is to take a standpoint on it - there are doubtless millions, if not billions, of things that I do not know about but my initial thoughts on them are not "I don't believe they exist", it is "I don't know enough about them to form an opinion yet". That's a logical standpoint, I can then look to evidence if any exists and form an opinion, I may be right or I may be wrong but at that point I've had to consider some evidence to express any opinion unless I want to take up a position of faith about it.

Again I'll point out there's nothing wrong with taking a position of faith, people do it all the time for a variety of different reasons but it's always worth recognising that you're doing it.

How does a new-born come to the conclusion that a deity exists?

You'd probably have to keep the child away from any human contact and ideas to be sure that it's not being influenced in any way regarding the possibility of a deity being consciously or otherwise planted in their mind - however at this point getting the child to develop speech and any form of communication beyond the most rudimentary would be difficult. However assuming you could do that and the child didn't grow up to be irreperably damaged (big suppositions but there we go) then we don't know, maybe a deity would appear to the child in a dream and that's the point they'd conclude one exists...

 

[Castiel]

That's why I'm proactive - Antitheist.

If religious folk argue their case.
Agnostic people don't argue anything.
And Atheists let religious folk do what they like.

Then the overall sway is towards religious folk.

It should be an Atheist's duty to be proactive - Antitheist - because religion has caused an overwhelming amount of bad compared to the good - not least to say that all religious folk are living a lie! By the same logic, one is therefore also defined as a Humanist.

IMO - All true Atheists are Antitheists AND Humanists. *shrug*

But you can be Humanist and Religious.........in fact Humanism was borne out of Religion.

Now Secular Humanists.....that is something specific, and many are concerned about the negative impact of antitheism as you refer to it on it's positive message and distance themselves from 'antitheists' or militant atheists.

http://humanism.ws/features/humanism-kurtz-confront-the-new-atheism/

 

[Glaucus]

There also seems to be a natural feeling and seeking out of spirtuallity which many people feel.

 

[Randomface74]

there are doubtless millions, if not billions, of things that I do not know about but my initial thoughts on them are not "I don't believe they exist", it is "I don't know enough about them to form an opinion yet". That's a logical standpoint, I can then look to evidence if any exists and form an opinion, I may be right or I may be wrong but at that point I've had to consider some evidence to express any opinion unless I want to take up a position of faith about it.

I get where you're coming from, but it doesn't stand up over an average of an infinite number of possibilities.

e.g. I tell you this: "there's a giant vengeful pig with a very curly tail, she's pink and she requires that you must not eat for a week or you won't go to heaven".

do you:
a) google it (research)
b) starve (faith)
c) laugh at me?

is your answer still the same if I do it 9999999[..]99999999 times?

 

[Monkeynut]

It's not as simple as believing only what you see, that would be silly!

Everyone's born not believing in mavity. Then you realise stuff falls. Then someone teaches you about it in school and you know how to refer to it, what evidence exists, etc. Do most people get to check if it's down to mass attracting other mass - no, as far as most of us are concerned that could all be made up, and that's fine.

How does a new-born come to the conclusion that a deity exists?

To make your first sentence a little more accurate it would probably be better to say everyone is born ignorant of mavity.