Poll: What is your position on religion/god?

[semi-pro waster]

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?

I'll take option d) please Bob. I'm apathetic agnostic about a great many things, is there any reason for me to care about said giant vengeful pig? If the answer is no then my option d) is to express no opinion on the pig and continue on with my life merrily.

If your point is that in some circumstances you can't just blithely follow the same rules to deal with every possible issue then you're almost certainly right but I'd argue that disbelief in an issue as a default will require more adjustment and more regularly than not expressing an opinion initially.

 

[Randomface74]

There are infinite things you'd need to make an adjustment on - e.g. my giant pig and all her friends. I wouldn't need to adjust for any of them.

oh and you don't get to go to heaven because you don't believe in the pig, ul

 

[semi-pro waster]

There are infinite things you'd need to make an adjustment on - e.g. my giant pig and all her friends. I wouldn't need to adjust for any of them.

oh and you don't get to go to heaven because you don't believe in the pig, ul

Curious. So you don't think "nope, doesn't exist" as a default position is likely to be proved wrong more often than saying "I don't know enough to express an opinion so I'll reserve judgement"? The latter option has left you with room to reconsider your position at any point without having to backtrack and acknowledge that yes, it does exist contrary to your previously stated position.

As I've said before if that's the way you prefer to do things then that's not a problem but it's not a logical default.

 

[MrRoper]

I mean what I say, evolution by random mutation and preferential selection, and evolution by intelligent design have exactly the same supporting evidence, eg we can track and observe changes in organisms over the short term, and back track changes from historical analogues over the long term.

The difference comes in the mechanism by which those changes occur, not the evidence that those changes occur. The reason why Evolution by random mutation and preferential selection is scientific, and intelligent design is not, is because of the incompatibility between intelligent design and the parsimony principle, not because the evidence couldn't support it.

Are you seriously suggesting that ID has the same supporting evidence as Evolution? What exactly is your definition of I.D. ?

 

[ots3go]

Agnostic.

Keeping to a one word answer for simplicities sake.

 

[Glaucus]

Are you seriously suggesting that ID has the same supporting evidence as Evolution? What exactly is your definition of I.D. ?

Of course it does. As the evidence for both are identicle. Any evidence for evolution is also evidence for ID, that doesn't mean it has the same weight, especially in science. And it doesn't mean we think ID is correct. But you can't argue the evidence is different.
The only difference between Evolution and ID is one is random mutations, the other is mutations by a guiding hand.

 

[StriderX]

Technically we could create a species and try to guide its development, thus partly proving ID.

But whatever.

 

[Witor]

Agnostic here.

Dont necessarily believe the human constructs ( organised religion), less so when you see how controlling/indoctrinating they become.

Despite that (or maybe because of it, who knows...), I still kinda think there might be some sort of higher force, of what form I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Castiel]

Technically we could create a species and try to guide its development, thus partly proving ID.

But whatever.

I dont think we are technically able to do that just yet, and all it will prove is that we can create a species and quide its development.

It certainly will not prove ID. if we created a self contained, self perpetuating Universe and was able to control that it would illustrate ID was possible, but still not prove that we ourselves are subject to it.

 

[shoes]

My position is that we're all a bit too advanced as a civilisation to just make up fairy tales to cover things we don't understand or can't explain.

 

[MrRoper]

Of course it does. As the evidence for both are identicle. Any evidence for evolution is also evidence for ID, that doesn't mean it has the same weight, especially in science. And it doesn't mean we think ID is correct. But you can't argue the evidence is different.
The only difference between Evolution and ID is one is random mutations, the other is mutations by a guiding hand.

This all depends on what your definition of ID is though, and even if we agree that ID includes "Evolution" you have to concede that if this was the work of a creator, he either had a sense of humour, or wasnt very good at what he was doing!

Go ask a [Male] Tidarren spider what he thinks of how he was designed!

 

[Glaucus]

No good like us?
Does every evolution in technology work?
Why would it include evolution?
ID is progressive evolution by a guiding hand.

Exactly the same as us evolving technology.

 

[MrRoper]

Its not the same though is it? We dont "mutate" technology randomly, we design and test until it works well,

If this was the case with ID why are there animals with features that they have no use for or are a hinderence to the way they live?

 

[Glaucus]

Its not the same though is it? We dont "mutate" technology randomly, we design and test until it works well,

If this was the case with ID why are there animals with features that they have no use for or are a hinderence to the way they live?

Your first paragraph tells you why and why it is the same. Our evolution isn't perfect more is ID. Despite us trying to evolve technology how we want it still goes wrong.

untill it works so failed, wrong or issues then. Technology containing previous parts or code from previouse versions, which are no longer needed.

It sounds identical to natural evolution and why there us no difference in imperial data between the two.

 

[lttlejoe]

With science and scientific theory, one can challenge it - with religious beliefs it's near impossible to challenge because the believer is totally committed to that belief and closed to any other view even when they have no quantitative evidence to support their beliefs.

Also, trying to argue against beliefs is another near imposibility as the structure of religious teaching is circular and any arguments against religious beliefs put forward are also doomed to failure because of the circular nature of the teaching/indoctrination.

All a religious believer has to do is believe that their god was responsible for anything and everything and they don't need to question evidence to the contrary - hence the protraction of primitive religeous beliefs, even into the 21st Century.

 

[MrRoper]

Your first paragraph tells you why and why it is the same. Our evolution isn't perfect more is ID. Despite us trying to evolve technology how we want it still goes wrong.

untill it works so failed, wrong or issues then. Technology containing previous parts or code from previouse versions, which are no longer needed.

It sounds identical to natural evolution and why there us no difference in imperial data between the two.

Can you show me a piece of technology that has Vestigal components that serve no purpose?

 

[Glaucus]

Actually many, but by no means all or close to all, do challenge and question there belief. Which is why they debate it with opposing views, religions, science and the rest.

 

[Glaucus]

Can you show me a piece of technology that has Vestigal components that serve no purpose?

Pretty much every single computer program.
Pretty much ever single computer chip. Will include parts that are not need in the device.
Pretty much everything is a steady evolution with ties to the past

 

[Col_M]

I guess somewhere between agnostic and atheist, there could be a creator of the universe, time and space (created it at the very beginning and left it go, i.e. not omnipotent and omniscient) but on the other hand everything we know so far points to there being nothing. I'm not too woried either way.

However if there is no god I haven't wasted my life worshiping a figment of a collective imagination, if there is a god and it's a loving caring god then it wouldn't care that I don't worship 'him' every day and would be happy that I enjoyed my life, if like the Abrahamic religions where the god is a murdering contol freak that requires praise then I'll be glad I didn't waste my time on such an arse.

 

[MrRoper]

Pretty much every single computer program.
Pretty much ever single computer chip. Will include parts that are not need in the device.
Pretty much everything is a steady evolution with ties to the past

Yeah badly maintained and designed code does include code no longer used, But it is seen as bad practice in the industry.

Can you please provide evidence of a Computer chip that contains components that are not used?