Belief/Non-Belief Census

[Henny]

so what's your problem with me not knowing it?

It's not about what you know, it's about what you believe, or what you hold to be more likely.

I think that iff has made it pretty clear that he doesn't believe one way or the other, and it seems like you're trying to say he has to pick atheism or theism as more likely. If I'm misunderstanding you I apologize, but it seems like you're trying to push iff towards choosing weak atheism, which may not reflect his beliefs.

I understood as "I don't have the means to prove or disprove X, therefore it's about as likely either way". This is of course a problematic statement, but I can't say he actually isn't "totally agnostic" in that sense.

It's the same thing with someone who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient god even though it's a logical contradiction. I'd understand this person really does believe in it, but I do have a problem with it.

[annwyl_cariad]

so what's your problem with me not knowing it?

It's not about what you know, it's about what you believe, or what you hold to be more likely.

I think that iff has made it pretty clear that he doesn't believe one way or the other, and it seems like you're trying to say he has to pick atheism or theism as more likely. If I'm misunderstanding you I apologize, but it seems like you're trying to push iff towards choosing weak atheism, which may not reflect his beliefs.

I understood as "I don't have the means to prove or disprove X, therefore it's about as likely either way". This is of course a problematic statement, but I can't say he actually isn't "totally agnostic" in that sense.

It's the same thing with someone who believes in an omnipotent, omniscient god even though it's a logical contradiction. I'd understand this person really does believe in it, but I do have a problem with it.

Okay, I guess I see what you're saying. I think I've been reading iff's posts differently than you have, and that's where the confusion comes in.

For the record, I voted Pragmatic Theist (and I'm leaving this thread now because when I get into religious debates on the internet, I accomplish nothing else that day, haha).

[Nyxity]

Weak Theist - I live my life based on that there is a good possibility of a god existing but I'm not very religious.

I'm mainly like: I believe all religions/lack of religions are possible. They all have their good points and their flaws. They all have similar ideas as well as different ones... I believe in the possibility of a god and the possibility of there not being one. I accept others beliefs and yet am not devout to them.

[Jarl]

I'm mainly like: I believe all religions/lack of religions are possible. They all have their good points and their flaws. They all have similar ideas as well as different ones... I believe in the possibility of a god and the possibility of there not being one. I accept others beliefs and yet am not devout to them.

This is one particular stance that never made sense to me. People who claim that multiple religions are 'possibly true'. Logically, all religions calim that they are correct and the rest are false...thus when you are in a room with a lot of people each claiming they are right and the others are wrong...the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that they are ALL wrong.

There can only be one 'truth' and one 'correct answer'. Two people with different answers cannot both be correct, its simply not possible.

[Tikva]

I'm mainly like: I believe all religions/lack of religions are possible. They all have their good points and their flaws. They all have similar ideas as well as different ones... I believe in the possibility of a god and the possibility of there not being one. I accept others beliefs and yet am not devout to them.

This is one particular stance that never made sense to me. People who claim that multiple religions are 'possibly true'. Logically, all religions calim that they are correct and the rest are false...thus when you are in a room with a lot of people each claiming they are right and the others are wrong...the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that they are ALL wrong.

There can only be one 'truth' and one 'correct answer'. Two people with different answers cannot both be correct, its simply not possible.

I guess you never heard of the Ba'hai?

[Appledoll]

other

I'm pagan and well with the "a god" clausal on all the option except other,

its quite a monotheistic based poll, not all religion, faiths, beliefs etc are monotheistic.

as for religious I'm somewhere between strong and pragmatic...

I do believe there is just as big chance of every deity ever believed in exciting, as there is in no deity or just one ever having existed.

[Blerdivor]

I had a Bahai friend

[Cerebrum]

I went with pragmatic atheist. I have seen no evidence for god(s) and/or goddess(es), and I see no reason to believe in them, but because the nonexistence of a divine being has not been proven, I cannot know for certain.

[Henny]

I'm mainly like: I believe all religions/lack of religions are possible. They all have their good points and their flaws. They all have similar ideas as well as different ones... I believe in the possibility of a god and the possibility of there not being one. I accept others beliefs and yet am not devout to them.

This is one particular stance that never made sense to me. People who claim that multiple religions are 'possibly true'. Logically, all religions calim that they are correct and the rest are false...thus when you are in a room with a lot of people each claiming they are right and the others are wrong...the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that they are ALL wrong.

There can only be one 'truth' and one 'correct answer'. Two people with different answers cannot both be correct, its simply not possible.

I guess you never heard of the Ba'hai?

Is this an argument for how religions which make mutually exclusive claims can still all be true? If so, elaborate.

[Tikva]

I'm mainly like: I believe all religions/lack of religions are possible. They all have their good points and their flaws. They all have similar ideas as well as different ones... I believe in the possibility of a god and the possibility of there not being one. I accept others beliefs and yet am not devout to them.

This is one particular stance that never made sense to me. People who claim that multiple religions are 'possibly true'. Logically, all religions calim that they are correct and the rest are false...thus when you are in a room with a lot of people each claiming they are right and the others are wrong...the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that they are ALL wrong.

There can only be one 'truth' and one 'correct answer'. Two people with different answers cannot both be correct, its simply not possible.

I guess you never heard of the Ba'hai?

Is this an argument for how religions which make mutually exclusive claims can still all be true? If so, elaborate.

No, I merely mentioned the Ba'hai.

The Ba'hai Faith believes in the spiritual unity of all humans. They believe that the various religions (with the variety of different rules, beliefs, etc) are each just different manifestations, of the same thing, for a particular time and place, interpreted by different cultures.

I'll use culinary terms as a metaphor. Different cultures often have different and unique foods for that particular time and place. What is seen as a delicacy in one culture may be seen as abhorrent and unfit to eat by another culture. Ba'hais would see all the different foods as simply nourishment and not as "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" food. It is still food, just used differently according to culture and traditions.

So, for the Ba'hai, Jarl's comment would be incorrect. It IS possible.

[Henny]

I'm mainly like: I believe all religions/lack of religions are possible. They all have their good points and their flaws. They all have similar ideas as well as different ones... I believe in the possibility of a god and the possibility of there not being one. I accept others beliefs and yet am not devout to them.

This is one particular stance that never made sense to me. People who claim that multiple religions are 'possibly true'. Logically, all religions calim that they are correct and the rest are false...thus when you are in a room with a lot of people each claiming they are right and the others are wrong...the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that they are ALL wrong.

There can only be one 'truth' and one 'correct answer'. Two people with different answers cannot both be correct, its simply not possible.

I guess you never heard of the Ba'hai?

Is this an argument for how religions which make mutually exclusive claims can still all be true? If so, elaborate.

No, I merely mentioned the Ba'hai.

The Ba'hai Faith believes in the spiritual unity of all humans. They believe that the various religions (with the variety of different rules, beliefs, etc) are each just different manifestations, of the same thing, for a particular time and place, interpreted by different cultures.

I'll use culinary terms as a metaphor. Different cultures often have different and unique foods for that particular time and place. What is seen as a delicacy in one culture may be seen as abhorrent and unfit to eat by another culture. Ba'hais would see all the different foods as simply nourishment and not as "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" food. It is still food, just used differently according to culture and traditions.

So, for the Ba'hai, Jarl's comment would be incorrect. It IS possible.

Perhaps both the Ba'hai and Jarl are correct.

Anyway, comparing mutually exclusive claims with subjective culinary preferences is comparing apples to oranges.

[snufflebottoms]

I went with pragmatic theist b/c I have always had a deep sense of a divine. I know that there is a divine out there. It is an intuitive feeling. Hard to explain and quantify but impossible for me to deny.

[Sally]

A Ba'hai friend recently attempted to convert me and their beliefs are a little stronger than that. There was a person in the 19th century whose name didn't register with me who apparently was the next and last (aren't they all?) prophet, and to be Ba'hai you must accept that to be the case. She said they've come to believe this guy was somewhat divine.

[Henny]

A Ba'hai friend recently attempted to convert me and their beliefs are a little stronger than that. There was a person in the 19th century whose name didn't register with me who apparently was the next and last (aren't they all?) prophet, and to be Ba'hai you must accept that to be the case. She said they've come to believe this guy was somewhat divine.

I talked with a Ba'hai once. He said that "Ba'hais don't argue". This made communication quite difficult, of course.

[Jarl]

No, I merely mentioned the Ba'hai.

The Ba'hai Faith believes in the spiritual unity of all humans. They believe that the various religions (with the variety of different rules, beliefs, etc) are each just different manifestations, of the same thing, for a particular time and place, interpreted by different cultures.

I'll use culinary terms as a metaphor. Different cultures often have different and unique foods for that particular time and place. What is seen as a delicacy in one culture may be seen as abhorrent and unfit to eat by another culture. Ba'hais would see all the different foods as simply nourishment and not as "right" or "wrong", "good" or "bad" food. It is still food, just used differently according to culture and traditions.

So, for the Ba'hai, Jarl's comment would be incorrect. It IS possible.

Um, well no. We can't. There is only ONE correct answer....thats why its called correct. 2+2=4. 4 is the correct answer, but by these Ba'hai people's assertion, they could say 5 was the correct answer...'cos 5 is a number just like 4 right?

You cannot have two right answers to a single question, its a logical impossibility.

I went with pragmatic theist b/c I have always had a deep sense of a divine. I know that there is a divine out there. It is an intuitive feeling. Hard to explain and quantify but impossible for me to deny

Feeling something isn't the same as knowing something sadly. You might be sitting in your room and get the feeling that you're being watched, but you know you're the only one in the room and a careful search does not reveal a burglar under the bed. Is there still someone in the room anyway? Nu-uh.

[dhanishta]

Perhaps we don't exist. So all our thoughts are just random collections of electrical and chemical impulses which we then call opinions. In reality we are completely clueless. Is that an agnostic point of view?

[Axalotl]

Put myself down as a strong Atheist, but it is kind of grey.

I pay lip service to the possibility there is some greater power, but in reality I do not accept that as realistic.

And I fully accept that my position is as based on faith as other religions. Which may be part of the reason I get on so well with religious people.

[House of Chimeras]

I put “Strictly 50/50 Agnostic” though perhaps “Other” might have been a better fit. I don’t wonder either way if anything divine exists wither way because in the end I believe the truth is unknowable when it comes to if there is anything divine or even if nature sprits, souls, or spirits actually existence either. So I don’t worry about my spirituality that much in those respects. I just am agnostic animist.

[AVENCakes]

I don't believe in the typical view of "God", don't agree with any of the depictions I've seen and am against organized religion, but I'm definitely not an atheist. I think I'm between pragmatic and strongly theist.

[Dylan-Michael]

I put "Strong Theist", because I am.

I'm Roman Catholic.

I've seen very few people who share my beliefs on here...

[Starscream]

I voted, Strictly 50/50 Agnostic.

But, Belief/Non-Belief is not something I think about that much in my daily life. I just simply live my life.

[Shinnok]

Strong Theist

[M.H.]

People dreamed up gods, ghosts demons etc a long time ago to explain things that they couldn't explain at the time eg: lightning, disease and so on.

ghosts?

obviously somebody never lived in a haunted house before ^_^

[Porygon]

Strong Atheist, accidentally voted Pragmatic though.

[kakkobean]

I feel like I'm more a spiritualist than a theist. Like, so I believe in things about the spiritual world, like ghosts, the veil, and supernatural elements, but as for an overwhelming Other that created the rules and has all things abide by them, not so much. I don't even believe that Science can act as a substitute god, because there are so many things that science can't explain or apply rational thought to (like, GRAVITY--it defies seven basic principles of physics, so even though we have an equation for it, it's really a dummy equation that doesn't help us understand it).

[skai]

Strictly 50/50 Agnostic...

I'd like to believe there is a God/Goddess/Higher Being who is all loving (and not condeming, like the one I learned about in church), but right now, I really don't know. I'm not gonna say it's impossible, but I'm not gonna say it's true.

[Orion]

Other: Theist Agnostic (Christian Agnostic). I definitely believe that there is a god but what form that god is I believe can be open to interpretation.

[Haunter]

Pragmatic theist, leaning towards strong theist. I can't believe that millions of intelligent people were/are delusional.

[Guest]

Pragmatic Theist leaning towards the weak/agnostic side of things at this point in time.

[ThePieMaker]

Pragmatic theist. I'm fairly sure there is a god, but I'm not for certain. Though, I don't consider myself religious, I do live a pretty moral life and believe in doing good and I believe that there is probably divine intervention (though I accept the possibility of it all being amazing coincidence and luck). I suppose I'm more along the spiritual side of things.