Poll: What is your position on religion/god?

[Angilion]

It was never proven

Yes, it was. There are extant ancient Greek proofs of it. Granted, they thought that the Earth was a perfect sphere rather than the slightly flattened one that it actually is, but they certainly proved it wasn't flat. They calculated its size, its axial tilt, the distance between Earth and the moon and between Earth and the Sun(*). Aristotle even correctly hypothesised that the spherical shape was due to the process of planetary formation.

The classic proof is the shape of the Earth's shadow on the moon. It's always the edge of a circle and the only shape that casts a circular shadow from all angles is a sphere.

* Their figures for those distances were inaccurate due to inaccuracies in measurement stemming from the limited technology, but their methods were fine and give the correct results with accurate measurements.

 

[Usher]

But given the number of unexplained phenomena that have been explained over time, and the number of things that are still yet to be explained, it seems a little narrow minded to completely rule out one possibility, just because groups of people (religions) are very vocal about that possibility.

Unexplained phenomena that have been explained over time? depends what you mean by explained.
I'm on about supernatural phenomena, maybe proof of claims of seeing Jesus, ghosts, angels etc. not strange lights in the sky & that kind of thing & not deluded simpletons that claimed to see visions of Mary that nobody else can see such as the three Shepherd children at Fatima or Lourdes where the equally deluded still flock in their millions to this day to be fleeced out of their savings left right & centre.
I want to see Mary on TV in front of millions, hovering in the sky like those children of Fatima ( actually only one of the three , a ten year old saw the vision, the other two just went along with the circus act that it rapidly turned into. Stalls selling souvenirs rapidly opened up etc. etc. you get the picture?
You only have to read the 3 'secret' transcripts of what was supposedly said by Mary to see instantly it's total hogwash, e.g. "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart get the picture? become a Catholic quick or all will be lost

The same applies to all the other 'phenomena' such as Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, Yeti etc. In this modern world where just about everyone carries a camera in their phone then we should expect to see some photographic evidence shouldn't we?

Just like religions, it's all based on hearsay passed on for generations, invented by men as a means to control and strike fear into others & it seemingly works very well.

 

[easyrider]

snip.

So what does this have to do with the existence or non existence of god?

As I have said God does not need to be connected to any religion.

Deism actively rejects this...

 

[kylew]

Unexplained phenomena that have been explained over time? depends what you mean by explained.
I'm on about supernatural phenomena, maybe proof of claims of seeing Jesus, ghosts, angels etc. not strange lights in the sky & that kind of thing & not deluded simpletons that claimed to see visions of Mary that nobody else can see such as the three Shepherd children at Fatima or Lourdes where the equally deluded still flock in their millions to this day to be fleeced out of their savings left right & centre.
I want to see Mary on TV in front of millions, hovering in the sky like those children of Fatima ( actually only one of the three , a ten year old saw the vision, the other two just went along with the circus act that it rapidly turned into. Stalls selling souvenirs rapidly opened up etc. etc. you get the picture?
You only have to read the 3 'secret' transcripts of what was supposedly said by Mary to see instantly it's total hogwash, e.g. "You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart get the picture? become a Catholic quick or all will be lost

The same applies to all the other 'phenomena' such as Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, Yeti etc. In this modern world where just about everyone carries a camera in their phone then we should expect to see some photographic evidence shouldn't we?

Just like religions, it's all based on hearsay passed on for generations, invented by men as a means to control and strike fear into others & it seemingly works very well.

You seem to think because you don't believe in the things *religions* say, that it's proof that good doesn't exist. Religions are essentially the "god fanclub" their actions aren't representative of whether a god exists or not.

Like what you were saying about churches, just because they're guilty of doing the things they do, it has no bearing on whether or not god exists, and whether or not god approves of their actions, should he exist.

The vast majority of people arguing against the possibility of a god are demonstrating just how little they know about what they're talking about. Especially the people who equate not believing in a god/deity/higher power as being rational, intelligent and correct. People who act like that are just displaying how irrational, unintelligent and wrong that they are.

Now I don't say this to push the existence of god on people, and I know religious fundamentalists are bad for indoctrination and forcing their beliefs on people, but from experience, atheists who who explicitly believe there is no god and that their beliefs aren't faith based who are also militant, just exude a brand of arrogance that you just don't get anywhere else.

It's the bitter, vitriolic attitude that comes with it. Yeah, I know there are places like westboro baptist church, but even amongst the religious they're considered nut jobs. I find any sort of indoctrination offensive, I find religious people bashing about their respective beliefs on the street, trying to force it on people offensive, but there's just something about those specific atheists that I find the most offensive.

People need to just accept that god doesn't mean religion, religion doesn't mean god, science and god aren't necessarily exclusive, evolution isn't anti-god or pro-athiest, anti-evolution isn't pro-god or anti-athiest and science isn't this infallible tool that people seemingly think it is. Science is a human concept, it is limited by the comprehension of the human race and human brain, not a definition of the truth.

 

[easyrider]

People need to just accept that god doesn't mean religion, religion doesn't mean god, science and god aren't necessarily exclusive, evolution isn't anti-god or pro-athiest, anti-evolution isn't pro-god or anti-athiest and science isn't this infallible tool that people seemingly think it is.

Exactly..The atheists here claim they know what they are talking but after reading the posts the Non existence of god argument is polluted with religious dogma and mis-information.

Science is a human concept, it is limited by the comprehension of the human race and human brain, not a definition of the truth.

And Empiricism.

 

[Surfer]

maybe A Kind of Panentheism....

 

[LukasBB]

Im an atheist and I dont care if other people believe in gods, fortune tellers, unicorns or whatever but I dont like when someone is telling me what to believe in and that I will burn in hell if I dont let jesus come into my life. (happened twice to me this year)

 

[RDM]

The stats are somewhat suprising with over 70% expressing some level of disbelief. Considering what the last census suggested it seems to be quite a lot more than the national average.

 

[kylew]

The stats are somewhat suprising with over 70% expressing some level of disbelief. Considering what the last census suggested it seems to be quite a lot more than the national average.

The flaw with this type of poll is that it's pretty much useless. It's highly dependant on the right people coming in to the thread and voting on the poll, and all it shows at the moment is that mostly athiests have come in and voted.

 

[joeyjojo]

Atheist, but Buddhism doesn't contradict this either.

 

[sammo62]

The flaw with this type of poll is that it's pretty much useless. It's highly dependant on the right people coming in to the thread and voting on the poll, and all it shows at the moment is that mostly athiests have come in and voted.

Also I imagine the majority of older people in the UK are religious - so they skew the results on the census, but this forum is mostly younger people.

 

[easyrider]

Degree- The sun will eventually burn out

Leap- Our galaxy is like a Loaf of Bread...We have many other Galaxies parallel to each other on branes.

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory, also known as Membrane Theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions.

Loaf of bread and the speed of light explained on BBB2 right now in the program Faster than the speed of light,

If you missed it please watch it on BBCi Player !

 

[elmarko]

Weak/Strong and Implicit/Explicit are not the same categories, although admittedly it probably does help that the new atheist movement keeps trying to redefine the various terms on a regular basis in an attempt to both expand the base of atheists and try to reduce the criticism of the logical inconsistency of attacking faith based positions.

Traditionally, The positions are defined as follows:

Weak (or Negative) Atheism - Disbelieves the existence of deities, commonly due to absence of acceptable evidence. Open to change if evidence presents.

Strong (or Positive) Atheism - denies the existence of deities, not open to change.

Explicit atheism - Makes a conscious choice to disbelieve or deny the existence of deities.

Implicit atheism - lacks an explicit believe in the existence of a deity or deities.

In generally accepted (eg accepted by more than just the new atheist fringe), atheism covers explicit atheism in both strong and weak varieties, but not implicit atheism. (The terms explicit and implicit were defined by George H. Smith in his 1979 publication 'Atheism, the case against God'). There's a variety of reasons why this is the case, but most fundamentally, it's rather hard to discuss a position in a meaningful manner that people don't self identify as a group.

The issue is further compounded by the multiple possible definitions of the use 'Belief' when in a religious context. I don't, for example, 'believe in' the Christian god, but my lack of theological belief has no bearing on the question whether I think the christian god exists or not, which I consider irrelevant. In this respect, although I lack an explicit belief in the christian god, I cannot be considered atheist towards it.

Perhaps it would be better, though, if we could agree on a common set of terms and debate the points rather than the language, because otherwise we aren't likely to progress.

On the evidence point around Goblins, the scientific method does provide a means to achieve this, provided we can sufficiently define the hypothesis and evidence in such a way that you can bypass the problems of induction, and equate an absence of evidence to be evidence of absence.

Some good points,

By the definitions you provided I'm a "weak/light atheist" as it's the only rational position to take.

No evidence exists so I do not believe.

No evidence exists proving it does not exist.

I would change my mind if evidence was provided.

Based on the above, I currently do not believe.

On the last point,

If there is no evidence goblins it means just that, it simply means none has been discovered.

Only when we have explored the entire universe/other dimensions (and found no goblins) could be say the lack of evidence is evidence they do not exist.

Not knowing something is just that, I'm happy with that.

It's akin to the argument "Because we don't know what created the world, it's proof it was God.

But that's logically flawed, trying to imply that a lack of evidence is infact evidence is like sayings.

I can't explain situation A, so therefore I can explain situation A as God/magic.

A lack of explanation is just that, nothing else can be read into it.

 

[spudbynight]

Im an atheist and I dont care if other people believe in gods, fortune tellers, unicorns or whatever but I dont like when someone is telling me what to believe in and that I will burn in hell if I dont let jesus come into my life. (happened twice to me this year)

I believe in God but my outlook is similar to yours. What is different though is that I on a near daily basis I come into contact with people trying to push militant secularism.

I have had people on here stamp their feet and say my view isn't valid because I believe in God - without me in any way referencing religion.

 

[elmarko]

You seem to think because you don't believe in the things *religions* say, that it's proof that good doesn't exist. Religions are essentially the "god fanclub" their actions aren't representative of whether a god exists or not.

Like what you were saying about churches, just because they're guilty of doing the things they do, it has no bearing on whether or not god exists, and whether or not god approves of their actions, should he exist.

The vast majority of people arguing against the possibility of a god are demonstrating just how little they know about what they're talking about. Especially the people who equate not believing in a god/deity/higher power as being rational, intelligent and correct. People who act like that are just displaying how irrational, unintelligent and wrong that they are.

Now I don't say this to push the existence of god on people, and I know religious fundamentalists are bad for indoctrination and forcing their beliefs on people, but from experience, atheists who who explicitly believe there is no god and that their beliefs aren't faith based who are also militant, just exude a brand of arrogance that you just don't get anywhere else.

It's the bitter, vitriolic attitude that comes with it. Yeah, I know there are places like westboro baptist church, but even amongst the religious they're considered nut jobs. I find any sort of indoctrination offensive, I find religious people bashing about their respective beliefs on the street, trying to force it on people offensive, but there's just something about those specific atheists that I find the most offensive.

People need to just accept that god doesn't mean religion, religion doesn't mean god, science and god aren't necessarily exclusive, evolution isn't anti-god or pro-athiest, anti-evolution isn't pro-god or anti-athiest and science isn't this infallible tool that people seemingly think it is. Science is a human concept, it is limited by the comprehension of the human race and human brain, not a definition of the truth.

It does not require faith to not believe in something.

Do you require faith to not believe in Thor?.

My view (weak atheism) requires no faith, as I don't believe - I can't hold a position either way on something that does not feature among the things I think exist.

Feel free to attack the strong-atheists & label them as misguided & irrational as you, but instead of this perhaps you should be more concerned the fact it's impossible to justify your beliefs (don't try pascals wager, it's a flawed argument).

I could do the anti-pascals wager that considering that a majority of gods are petty & despise the worshipping of false gods (more than a lack of belief) it would be logical to not believe at all (as we have no way of knowing which god out of the thousands made up is read) - which would be equally as invalid as the original (but valid in pointing out the stupidity of trying to apply odds to a situation in which none of the variable are known).

 

[Castiel]

It does not require faith to not believe in something.

Do you require faith to not believe in Thor?.

My view (weak atheism) requires no faith, as I don't believe - I can't hold a position either way on something that does not feature among the things I think exist.

Feel free to attack the strong-atheists & label them as misguided & irrational as you, but instead of this perhaps you should be more concerned the fact it's impossible to justify your beliefs (don't try pascals wager, it's a flawed argument).

I am ignostic, however I notice you describe yourself as weak atheist and you don't believe in God(s)
but some of what you say, like I have asked below, implies that you have rather strong atheist opinions?


If you hold no position either way, then how can you judge that kylews position is misguided and irrational. That you have a strong opinion on his position as being, as you describe irrational and misguided, then surely this implies the opposite?


I don't believe in the various creator Gods, yet I am aware that many do and I accept that the evidence they have to support their viewpoint is as valid to them as the lack thereof is to me. I wouldn't presume to state their belief in God is misguided or irrational as I don't actually know whether there is a God or not.

Being critical of religion is not the same as dismissing someones belief in God, whatever creed they profess to follow.

 

[ShaolinDreams]

The stats are somewhat suprising with over 70% expressing some level of disbelief. Considering what the last census suggested it seems to be quite a lot more than the national average.

surprising.

 

[Glaucus]

It's a young, male, higher educated dominated forum. Polls on ocuk never reflect public opinion and it's no surprise at all.

 

[Dolph]

Some good points,

By the definitions you provided I'm a "weak/light atheist" as it's the only rational position to take.

No evidence exists so I do not believe.

No evidence exists proving it does not exist.

I would change my mind if evidence was provided.

Based on the above, I currently do not believe.

On the last point,

If there is no evidence goblins it means just that, it simply means none has been discovered.

Only when we have explored the entire universe/other dimensions (and found no goblins) could be say the lack of evidence is evidence they do not exist.

Not knowing something is just that, I'm happy with that.

It's akin to the argument "Because we don't know what created the world, it's proof it was God.

But that's logically flawed, trying to imply that a lack of evidence is infact evidence is like sayings.

I can't explain situation A, so therefore I can explain situation A as God/magic.

A lack of explanation is just that, nothing else can be read into it.

Indeed, a lack of explanation is just that, however a lack of explanation doesn't lead to an atheist position, but an agnostic one. To make the leap, you have to effectively say 'I don't know, so I think...' rather than just 'I don't know'. As I said earlier, simply lacking an explicit belief in gods is not enough to make you an atheist, weak or otherwise, using the generally accepted definitions. (incidentally, the same group of atheists who have tried to introduce this all encompassing definition of atheism as including anyone who doesn't have a specific belief in a deity also tried to redefine agnosticism to mean something other than 'the position where the existence of god is unknown, unknowable or irrelevant' to a claim about knowledge to be tagged on to atheism.)

 

[elmarko]

I am ignostic, however I notice you describe yourself as weak atheist and you don't believe in God(s)
but some of what you say, like I have asked below, implies that you have rather strong atheist opinions?


If you hold no position either way, then how can you judge that kylews position is misguided and irrational. That you have a strong opinion on his position as being, as you describe irrational and misguided, then surely this implies the opposite?


I don't believe in the various creator Gods, yet I am aware that many do and I accept that the evidence they have to support their viewpoint is as valid to them as the lack thereof is to me. I wouldn't presume to state their belief in God is misguided or irrational as I don't actually know whether there is a God or not.

Being critical of religion is not the same as dismissing someones belief in God, whatever creed they profess to follow.

You misunderstand what I'm saying.

I don't "Believe a god does not exist" or "believe a god does exist".

I simply don't believe in a god, it's a negative as opposed to a positive.

Any positive requires proof to justify a position, which either side of the argument lack - it's irrational to hold any belief with no evidence.

People who attempt to compare this to science are often the most deeply disturbed - either intentionally or through a lack of understanding.

I'll use dark matter as an example, it's unobservable as it does not directly interact with light/radio waves - they don't know for sure what it is.

Some try to ascribe this to similar kind of faith, but they are forgetting that the only reason that dark matter was theorised was because when looking at light they noticed a gravitational distortion that could only be accounted for by a source of matter which is currently undetectable - something had to be there because they could observe it's impact on objects around them - real theories based of real observations.

This is the kind of leap science makes, not wild stabs in the dark with no evidence whatsoever like the concept of a creator/god.

Any attempt to use the "you can't disprove god" is a flawed argument, as you can't disprove anything does not exist (if what they claim exists is not in this physical reality).

If people accept that it's a matte of personal faith & nothing more, fine - but when religious people try to reduce science to that level it get's tiresome.

I have nothing against individuals holding personal beliefs, but I do have a problem with people trying to distort facts, imply they know more than they do or discredit the scientific method to the same level as religion.

Perhaps I'd be more tolerant of this kind of irrational behaviour if it wasn't for the amount of suffering through child rape, homophobia, prohibition of contraception in aids infested Africa, religious oppression of human rights, caste systems, the disgusting way women are treated in most religious country, female/male genital mutilation & the insane obsession with forcing people to either wear hats or no hats.

"I don't want to belong to any organisation that either forces you to wear hats, or forbids it - I'd create a new one, with one rule - hats optional". - George Carlin.