Jump to content

Another atheist/theist poll...


CrazyCatLover

  

  1. 1. Do you believe in God/dess(es)?

    • Yes
      43
    • No
      81
    • Unsure
      21
  2. 2. Does God/dess(es) exist?

    • Yes
      34
    • No
      53
    • Unsure
      46
    • Other
      12

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Correlation does not equal causation.

(Thought someone had to say it before this atheism/depression idea goes further...)

That also might apply to someone who holds religious beliefs but does nothing to hurt others because of those beliefs, rather than someone who does hurt others. The beliefs correlate but the actions don't. That would apply to all religious groups whose members have at some point in history hurt others, including Christians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Theists call atheists atheists.

Atheists do not need to call themselves anything.

OK, I don't need to call myself atheist, but I like to do so. In the same way as I call myself asexual :)

I believe..I really do!:)

I don't know if God is a woman or maybe a man, but I know for sure there's something more powerful than we are, and that someone leads our paths..

If God was a woman or a man he/she wasn't a god but human.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's just what I don't understand about this, well about atheism, is, do you just say "nope, nothing exists but people and the things on their planet, and there is actually nothing more to think about, just get born (mysteriously and we don't have to think about how that happens on a larger scale), work our meaningless lives and die (and we don't have to think about how that happens on a larger scale)"?

Actually I believe that many atheists think way more about their existence, the existence of the world and so on than many religious people. They have to! Because they can not come up with a mysterious god that explains everything.

One concept to explain the existence of life is the evolution theory. There are other concepts to explain the existence of the universe we live in. The evolution theory is such a beauytyful concept, I suppose it means as much to me as god means to religious people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes & yes.

Because how the heck can you believe in something you are not sure exists? Where's the conviction in that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist
It's just what I don't understand about this, well about atheism, is, do you just say "nope, nothing exists but people and the things on their planet, and there is actually nothing more to think about, just get born (mysteriously and we don't have to think about how that happens on a larger scale), work our meaningless lives and die (and we don't have to think about how that happens on a larger scale)"?

Actually I believe that many atheists think way more about their existence, the existence of the world and so on than many religious people. They have to! Because they can not come up with a mysterious god that explains everything.

One concept to explain the existence of life is the evolution theory. There are other concepts to explain the existence of the universe we live in. The evolution theory is such a beauytyful concept, I suppose it means as much to me as god means to religious people.

Evolution explains the diversity of life and why it is the way it is very well. It does not explain the *existence* of life. That would be abiogenesis.

Of course, many abiogenesis models incorporate evolutionary factors in the later stages; not doing so would be denying simple cause-and-effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes & yes.

Because how the heck can you believe in something you are not sure exists? Where's the conviction in that?

Man, if I lived like that I don't know how I'd be standing up. I know myself, I have to believe everything around me exists, if you want me to get philosophical. I believe there is an earth beneath me, aside from sensory proof, do I have a true assurance that there is no possibility it does not exist? Certainly I have no reason not to trust my senses, but if I thought about it hard enough I could definitely find reasons! And if my culture had reasons for me to disbelieve (say I lived in the matrix movie) then I'd have reason not to believe the surface I am standing on. That being said, I AM unsure if there is TRULY a ground I'm standing on, but I'm gonna go ahead and believe it anyway!

I think what a lot of 'atheist' seem to believe is that if you believe something you can't be skeptical of it.

I believe in everything I think I know, and am skeptical of everything I do and do not believe in. Always question existence, always question reality, never be an atheist! That's my motto! ;p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly my original comment wasn't meant to call anything into question, the option of clicking yes I believe in God & but I'm not sure He exists simultaneously struck me as funny at the time because of the conflict in such a statement. Which is why I said "where's the conviction in that?" Obviously someone who isn't sure God exists are not very convinced now are they? Personally I don't care what other people's faith is or isn't, that's an individual thing. But technically if you have "belief" in something, you except it's existence without question, that's what belief means.

(Obligatory quote from dictionary)

Websters:

Main Entry:

be·lief

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

One may 'suspect' there is a higher being/god, but if one is to have 'belief' according to the definition of the word, that would require an element of trust or confidence in the existence of something (in this case a higher being/god). When discussing faith the word belief is used in the context of acceptance of something that is often not tangible, whether it is existence of God or the legitimacy of the answer your SO gave you as to why they were 2 hours late last night; you believe in something when you accept it's validity without proof. The ground is something you can reach down, touch and even pick up in some cases, one does not 'believe' in the ground beneath their feet; the ground is not metaphysical. Being material is legitimate proof of it's existence; there is no trust required since it can be experienced with the senses, therefore the ground exists. Faith that there is a ground is irrelevant. I'm not getting into existentialism or hyperreality or whether or not the tree makes a sound, I'm just talking about the simple truth behind the meaning of existence and belief.

I think what a lot of 'atheist' seem to believe is that if you believe something you can't be skeptical of it

By the definition of the word, that's an accurate assumption. If you are skeptical of something, then you have doubt, you are uncertain. Uncertainly confident there is a god? A doubting conviction there is a god? Either you're a skeptic or a believer, to be both is an oxy moron, it's like saying you're a tall short person or a big small person or an introverted extrovert or a..a...*head explodes*

Ok lets wrap this up, to be skeptical is to be uncertain which means to have doubt; to have doubt is to lack confidence (see 1. in the definition of belief).

Of course, there is a shorter way to point all this out...Because how the heck can you believe in something you are not sure exists? Where's the conviction in that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the whole of life rests on the very fact of duality! Things aren't black and white! Is this just because I'm an arts student that I have to think in multiplicity? Of course you can be a skeptic and a believer! By your last post, I would be an absolute nihilist! And that just isn't so. Maybe I've got multiple beings in me, I don't know (wouldn't shock me, I'm a gemini) but I assure you I am skeptical of my beliefs and believe in my skepticisms ;) How can you be a human being and not be a walking contradiction? That would be a true contradiction!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know this whole mess could have been avoided if you'd just said you were a gemini to begin with you know... :lol: Instead, you just let me babble like a fool!

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know this whole mess could have been avoided if you'd just said you were a gemini to begin with you know... :lol: Instead, you just let me babble like a fool!

There's a little Pisces in there also.

Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_scientist
I think what a lot of 'atheist' seem to believe is that if you believe something you can't be skeptical of it

By the definition of the word, that's an accurate assumption. If you are skeptical of something, then you have doubt, you are uncertain. Uncertainly confident there is a god? A doubting conviction there is a god? Either you're a skeptic or a believer, to be both is an oxy moron, it's like saying you're a tall short person or a big small person or an introverted extrovert or a..a...*head explodes*

Ok lets wrap this up, to be skeptical is to be uncertain which means to have doubt; to have doubt is to lack confidence (see 1. in the definition of belief).

Of course, there is a shorter way to point all this out...Because how the heck can you believe in something you are not sure exists? Where's the conviction in that?

I dunno about that; scientists have to be skeptical without doubt all the time. You can critically analyse something without thinking it's wrong (although inherent in that is that you would conclude it is wrong if it didn't stand up to your anlysis).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not a scientist so I can't say, but I would have assumed that consistent, reasonable doubt in the way of professional skepticism would be a prerequisite in such a field. I would think it hard to be subjective about something if you already have unwavering certainty in it. Isn't that very lack of certainty what would lead to further analysis? But hey, I was a business major; I didn't play with science beyond what the education system forced on me :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Theists call atheists atheists.

Atheists do not need to call themselves anything.

The term "Atheist" was used before "theist".

I think the many "Atheist" societies would prove your theory incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that god exists. In the same way that I don't believe the Tooth fairy, Santa, demons, Doctor Who, King Arthur or Martians exist.

Whilst I can never prove that these things do not exist completely perfectly, I feel there is enough evidence for me to conclude that they don't, unless one day someone comes up with new evidence to dispute the evidence I have so far.

However that doesn't mean I have no beliefs. I have a full set of ways, rules and laws that I govern myself with, and which I measure others by. These have been formed through a mixture of experience and logic.

It also doesn't mean I have no view of the future. I believe we should be trying to make our species better, our world better, and ourselves better. Its like a genetic tag team running through eternity like a tiny silver thread.

We have evolved to the point now, where we can take the back off evolution and look at how it ticks. It means that we can choose to develop ourselves in our own ways to some degree, if we can overcome our own history.

Those are my beliefs, or at least the ones relevant to the discussion.

I am sure everyone else on the forum believes something different, but I accept that and have never tried to force my beliefs on anyone. I am happy to let people believe anything they wish, as long as they are willing to do the same. I don't believe that I am better than any other human being, nor am I worse.

All my love,

Kate

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were on a planet where there was no theism, the people would not refer to themselves as atheists.

The point I was making is that atheism is only a term because religion is still a recognized concept.

For instance, I would never think to call my self a heliocentrist or round-earth theorist.

By using the terms we are asserting that there is merely a difference of opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If we were on a planet where there was no theism, the people would not refer to themselves as atheists.

The point I was making is that atheism is only a term because religion is still a recognized concept.

For instance, I would never think to call my self a heliocentrist or round-earth theorist.

By using the terms we are asserting that there is merely a difference of opinion.

Don't call yourself an atheist then - but I'm sure the many fundemental atheists out there would take great exception to their beloved term being attributed to those 'no-good Christians'! Religion will always be a recognisable concept, because belief is apart of our make up. Stalin wanted to do away it - and 50 million massacred people later have proven him wrong. Marx said that if you "take away the need for religion, you take away the religion" as he believed that religion was a clutch that only the poor and needy have - yet the wealthiest nation in the world being majority Christian proves his theorem (one I was certainly interested in in my younger days as a Marxist!) wrong.

Of course, you're perfectly right that "atheism" wouldn't be needed if there was no religion. But if we lived in a universe without darkness, we also wouldn't have a term for light. Some of us can see and understand the light; that's religion. We believe and have faith in what we feel and see. The modern world voids those feelings for some. And I certainly was one of them for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shockwave, I feel a similar experience with Om [God].

I believe there is a singularity in which the whole of reality exists, but whether this object is conscious or not it is the force which brings order and longevity to the space-time continuum.

I am not sure that this makes me a theist, I think I just have a spiritual connection to physics.

That's exactly how I feel!

Although I'm not a pantheist, I am a panentheist.

As a panentheist, I didn't vote in the poll. "Gods/Godesses" seems sooooo simplistic and infers finite beings-----and with gender no less!

That concept is totally absurd to me. Even more absurd is the idea of a "God" impregnating a human female who then gives birth to "God's son".

As humans, our understanding of "The Infinite One" is even less than our understanding of 'string theory'......but still fascinating!

As far as religions go, 99.9% of them are way off in describing a "god" or "goddess" :rolleyes: . The only ones who seem at all somewhat close in understanding, are the real mystics. (They're the 00.01% I had in mind).

Link to post
Share on other sites
If we were on a planet where there was no theism, the people would not refer to themselves as atheists.

The point I was making is that atheism is only a term because religion is still a recognized concept.

Of course, you're perfectly right that "atheism" wouldn't be needed if there was no religion. But if we lived in a universe without darkness, we also wouldn't have a term for light. Some of us can see and understand the light; that's religion. We believe and have faith in what we feel and see. The modern world voids those feelings for some. And I certainly was one of them for a long time.

:huh: "Light" is not called "religion".

It is called, "that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye".

As far as I know, anyone with sight can see light----with or without 'religion'.

Religions use the word, "light" as a metaphor, but your statement was, "if we lived in a universe without darkness, we also wouldn't have a term for light."

That sounds like optics---not 'religion'. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I say I'm a atheist, I voted no/other

(For me "atheist" is NOT a group of people who must fight Catholics, or anything of the sort)

I explain it that way:

I don't belive in God, or any other other idea of a more powerfull sentinent being being responsible of my life. I don't belive if, does not feel it and do not find it plausible.

BUT Someone could never prove it does not, in fact, exist. Like a mayor part of quantic physics, it's imposible.

I do belive , for example, in parrallele universes, I have nothing to prove it does exist, but nothing could prove me it does not esist. I belive it, feel it to be natural and right and very plausible.

"We have all a different way of seeing the world, people should not fight because of it."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Heligan
I say I'm a atheist, I voted no/other

(For me "atheist" is NOT a group of people who must fight Catholics, or anything of the sort)

I explain it that way:

I don't belive in God, or any other other idea of a more powerfull sentinent being being responsible of my life. I don't belive if, does not feel it and do not find it plausible.

BUT Someone could never prove it does not, in fact, exist. Like a mayor part of quantic physics, it's imposible.

I do belive , for example, in parrallele universes, I have nothing to prove it does exist, but nothing could prove me it does not esist. I belive it, feel it to be natural and right and very plausible.

"We have all a different way of seeing the world, people should not fight because of it."

Been thinking about parallel universes recently... specifically the idea that there are lots of 'me' out there. It occurred to me that determinism would probably have to be true for universes to fragment due to my actions... its a half formed idea Im not sure where I going with it.

I probably shouldnt be reading a book on determinism along side a book on string theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Of course, you're perfectly right that "atheism" wouldn't be needed if there was no religion. But if we lived in a universe without darkness, we also wouldn't have a term for light. Some of us can see and understand the light; that's religion. We believe and have faith in what we feel and see. The modern world voids those feelings for some. And I certainly was one of them for a long time.

The old "I was blind and then I saw" story -- from Marxism to religion. Kind of reminds me of a Cheech and Chong bit from years ago where a character says, "I used to be hooked on drugs and now I'm hooked on JEEEsus."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

I tend not to worry about wondering whether there's this bid bloke somewhere in the sky called God or not. I tend to think of 'existence' ie the whole of existence, everything, which by definition exists. Some people equate existence with God. I never really concern myself with the issue of being a theist or an atheist. A theist believes. An atheist does not. An agnostic doesn't know and a gnostic knows.

I think of God as being a state of existence that transcends ego, which is somewhat paradoxical because it can only be known when there are no thoughts and when the mind has become completely silent. -When you're overwhelmed by the beauty or when you are overflowing with compassion and love. When you're somehow in a state of having transcended all want or desire. When there's just the ebb and flow of your breath, and when in place of the ego there's just serenity. -The vastness of awareness -The silence in which thoughts arise. -A state of silence where there is no psychological thought-division between oneself and the rest of existence. It seems that only in such a transitory state where the ego has disappeared that can come to know what God is.

That's what God seems to be to me. -The state, if you can call it that, where in the absence of ego, all is love and love is all. The precence. Beyond time, and timeless. Inexpressible. Innocence, Oneness with the whole of existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
I'm surprised I haven't replied to this thread before.

No, I don't believe in God(s) / Goddess(es), and I'm highly doubtful that any exist. I'll keep my mind open enough to say that if science one day presented concrete evidence that some type of deities exist, I'd likely have to change my mind... though I'd still be highly unlikely to worship said deities. It's just not in my personality, really. The number of people believing in this sort of stuff disturbs me sometimes. (I don't mean here on AVEN, just in the world in general.) Particularly the number of very rigidly devout people... :blink:

All that being said, I think 'spirituality' (a rather overused term these days...) is still very much possible without any connection to religion whatsoever.

Can I just say I agree entirely with what CBC.Radio.Girl wrote? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...