What are you?
1. Strong theist: "I do not believe, I know."
6.8% (10)
6.8% (10)
2. De facto theist: "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
10.1% (15)
10.1% (15)
3. Leaning towards theism: "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
7.4% (11)
7.4% (11)
4. Completely impartial: "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
4.7% (7)
4.7% (7)
5. Leaning towards atheism: "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
8.1% (12)
8.1% (12)
6. De facto atheist: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
49.3% (73)
49.3% (73)
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
12.2% (18)
12.2% (18)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: How religious are you?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

One. Saw thunder god, yadda yadda yadda. I tend to be a hard believer in most my theories.

I think the "I know" options should be removed....as it would be impossible either way to "know" god exists or not.

Honestly it can very on the day. On the best of days I am a light-practicing pagan, and on the worst of days I am a militant atheist. Go put that one on that scale.

Endersgate1321:

I also find it funny I was the first to vote 100%

A. I have found that the votes aren't totally up to the minute.
2. You posted/voted very early in the thread.
C. The majority of this site (I think it was around 80 percent last I checked) are atheist or non-theist.

PercyBoleyn:
Actually, it seems more akin to people failing to understand disbelief. I don't believe in a God, it's that simple. How can I have an opinion on something I don't believe in? It's like me asking you what your opinion on Giraforinoceroelephatyrannocheeta-Rex is.

And that's a beautiful example. I have never ever heard of the Giraforinoceroelephatyrannocheeta-Rex! But you must be more than 12 years old and you're on a religion&politics forum - it is impossible for you to not have thought about God...

I agree with Dawkins... Again.
6.9 it is.

Danyal:

And that's a beautiful example. I have never ever heard of the Giraforinoceroelephatyrannocheeta-Rex! But you must be more than 12 years old and you're on a religion&politics forum - it is impossible for you to not have thought about God...

Why should I have an opinion on God? I don't believe in him. My cutoff point is evidence and since nobody has been able to prove that he exists I'm going to continue wallowing in disbelief.

PercyBoleyn:
Why should I have an opinion on God? I don't believe in him. My cutoff point is evidence and since nobody has been able to prove that he exists I'm going to continue wallowing in disbelief.

So, as we've already said, you're somewhere around 5 or 6.

5. Leaning towards atheism: "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist: "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

You're skeptical, and you probably think that his existence is improbable, or at least you live assuming he is not there.

Danyal:
You're skeptical, and you probably think that his existence is improbable, or at least you live assuming he is not there.

Nope. I just don't believe in him, that's all. There's really no more to it. If somebody found evidence for his existence I would but since no one stepped up to the plate, I don't.

Spartan1362:

I agree with Dawkins... Again.
6.9 it is.

Same.

...
...
...

Low content, got it. Anyway, I cannot in my right mind say 7 as we know we do not know everything with NO margin of error, however with that in mind I am pretty damn close to 7. I would say that considering this site, you will get mostly 6s. And this is one of those odd scales where 6.9 is still "closer" to 6 than 7 in definition... and now I am going off on a useless tangent.

Anyway. 6.9 it shall be.

Yeah I'm going with the popular opinion with 6. It fits my religious views to a T.

I chose 7, but should have picked 6 for the intellectual honesty of it. How ever certain one cannot claim to "know" without evidence covering every corner of ones conviction.

The scientific approach in a nutshell.

Six for me.

PercyBoleyn:

Danyal:
You're skeptical, and you probably think that his existence is improbable, or at least you live assuming he is not there.

Nope. I just don't believe in him, that's all. There's really no more to it. If somebody found evidence for his existence I would but since no one stepped up to the plate, I don't.

I'm pretty confident you're a 5 or 6, and are simply making this more complicated than it is.

As for me, I'm very certain the Judeo-Christian "God" doesn't exist, am highly skeptical about all other religions, and moderately skeptical about deism. So at least a 6 then.

PercyBoleyn:

Danyal:
You're skeptical, and you probably think that his existence is improbable, or at least you live assuming he is not there.

Nope. I just don't believe in him, that's all. There's really no more to it. If somebody found evidence for his existence I would but since no one stepped up to the plate, I don't.

Not believing in something= being skeptical about said thing. You wait for the evidence. Therefore you're anywhere between a 4 and a 6.
You're just being obtuse.

It's not possible to know there is no god. Atheists don't know there is no god, they simply don't believe in their existence due to the lack of proof.

Basically, #7 is not the right choice or the proper "end of the scale" because it's exactly the same as being religious; knowing that there IS a god (or claiming to).

5 , nobody proved the unexistance or existance.
If you have a concrete proof call me up.

Rastelin:
I chose 7, but should have picked 6 for the intellectual honesty of it. How ever certain one cannot claim to "know" without evidence covering every corner of ones conviction.

The scientific approach in a nutshell.

7 works for all practical purposes really. 6 is what I think, 7 will describe how I'd act about it. No consideration given to ideas that have given me no cause to even entertain the idea they might be true. Same way I'd treat the idea of a werewolf ready to teleport into my room the second I try to sleep...

Jean Hag:
5 , nobody proved the unexistance or existance.
If you have a concrete proof call me up.

Burden of proof isn't on those who don't believe something exists. When someone says, "God exists," it's up to them to prove it. It's not up to atheists to prove the opposite.

I've began to go to church again. I'm not completely comfortable wit it yet, so I picked the second one

Nominally only.

Mortai Gravesend:
7 works for all practical purposes really. 6 is what I think, 7 will describe how I'd act about it. No consideration given to ideas that have given me no cause to even entertain the idea they might be true. Same way I'd treat the idea of a werewolf ready to teleport into my room the second I try to sleep...

I see your point and quite agree. But the apologists will lash out on those 100% like a pack of wolves accusing you of doing the same as fundamentalist Christians or otherwise. It is important for them that you leave 00.01% chance for god or gods for some reason.

But for my own private amusement, I do the same for unicorns and Elf's.

I'd say about 6.5. If anyone ever does find evidence, I'll be REALLY surprised. Especially if he is anything like the Judeo-Christian god.

mdk31:

Jean Hag:
5 , nobody proved the unexistance or existance.
If you have a concrete proof call me up.

Burden of proof isn't on those who don't believe something exists. When someone says, "God exists," it's up to them to prove it. It's not up to atheists to prove the opposite.

actually the only people who can honestly avoid burden of proof are agnostics and apatheist. since they make no claims either way, so depending on the context of discussion and who the opponent is the atheist will very likely have to provide burden of proof when faced with an apatheist or pure agnostic.

keiskay:
so depending on the context of discussion and who the opponent is the atheist will very likely have to provide burden of proof when faced with an apatheist or pure agnostic.

Why? Atheism is the default setting for all humans. No one is born religious. But we are providing proof. It is called science.

Rastelin:

keiskay:
so depending on the context of discussion and who the opponent is the atheist will very likely have to provide burden of proof when faced with an apatheist or pure agnostic.

Why? Atheism is the default setting for all humans. No one is born religious. But we are providing proof. It is called science.

no agnosticism is the default position, or more appropriately apatheism. when you are born you have no knowledge either and you probably dont care as a baby either. so atheism and theism are not default position. if you raise a child ignorant of theism and atheism he will be an apatheist or pure agnostic not an atheist. since atheism and theism both require some form of indoctrination or teaching.

does it count if i accept chuck norris as my lord and savior? if so sign me up for the first option!

I would fall under 1. However, that is me personally. I dont go to church often, I dont say "The bible is the actual word of God." (its all one giant metaphor to me), and so on. My God caused the big bang, left the world and universe to form itself[1], and now controls the afterlife, where anyone from any religion goes, the only people being turned away are the truely evil, ie murderers, rapist, genocideist, etc.

[1] As my Geology teacher always said: "Why does God have to be a genie God? Why is it he had to fold his arms, bob his head, say 'HOW!', and it was there? Why cant he be a cool God who knew we would find out about science and created the world so we could learn about how he created the world?"

I didn't fit anywhere in that scale I don't think. I'm not religious at all, but I'm fairly spiritual.

Rastelin:
...Why? Atheism is the default setting for all humans. No one is born religious. But we are providing proof. It is called science.

I always find this particular statement rather insulting to the basic accumulation of human knowledge.
There are two types of knowledge: knowledge you have, and knowledge you do not have.
Atheism, for the purposes of the below, being defined as "Acting as if God doesn't exist."

The position of "I don't believe in something, and act on the assumption that it doesn't exist, if that something doesn't have evidence" prevents scientific advancement and experimentation; it requires evidence before belief, and by extension inaction without belief.
If you're therefore unable to act without evidence, you're unable to obtain said evidence without contradicting yourself.
It required evidence before evidence can be obtained.

The position of "Science dis-proves God" coupled with "I don't believe in something, and act on the assumption that it doesn't exist, if that something doesn't have evidence" invalidates itself because it requires Scientific evidence that was only obtained by the accumulation of actions that were performed without evidence, and thus in contradiction to said position.

Any position that contradicts itself was reached through an error in logical thinking: the truth cannot contradict itself.
As a result of this, and the scientific advancement of our species, the default position of all humans is demonstrated to be: without knowledge; to not know, but to seek knowledge. Otherwise, we'd have sat on our hands due to the requirements of our "default position": to not act without evidence.

In the beginning of our climb up the scientific ladder, we'd have had nothing; evidence of nothing, and so in-action would have been our only "logical" course, if Atheist-thinking was the default position.

So, Atheism isn't "without knowledge" - it requires knowledge - therefore, it it neither the "standard position" nor the "logical position".

Zeh Don:

Rastelin:
...Why? Atheism is the default setting for all humans. No one is born religious. But we are providing proof. It is called science.

I always find this particular statement rather insulting to the basic accumulation of human knowledge.
There are two types of knowledge: knowledge you have, and knowledge you do not have.
Atheism, for the purposes of the below, being defined as "Acting as if God doesn't exist."

The position of "I don't believe in something, and act on the assumption that it doesn't exist, if that something doesn't have evidence" prevents scientific advancement and experimentation; it requires evidence before belief, and by extension inaction without belief.
If you're therefore unable to act without evidence, you're unable to obtain said evidence without contradicting yourself.
It required evidence before evidence can be obtained.

The position of "Science dis-proves God" coupled with "I don't believe in something, and act on the assumption that it doesn't exist, if that something doesn't have evidence" invalidates itself because it requires Scientific evidence that was only obtained by the accumulation of actions that were performed without evidence, and thus in contradiction to said position.

Any position that contradicts itself was reached through an error in logical thinking: the truth cannot contradict itself.
As a result of this, and the scientific advancement of our species, the default position of all humans is demonstrated to be: without knowledge; to not know, but to seek knowledge. Otherwise, we'd have sat on our hands due to the requirements of our "default position": to not act without evidence.

In the beginning of our climb up the scientific ladder, we'd have had nothing; evidence of nothing, and so in-action would have been our only "logical" course, if Atheist-thinking was the default position.

So, Atheism isn't "without knowledge" - it requires knowledge - therefore, it it neither the "standard position" nor the "logical position".

Which is why scientists investigate the healing properties of decapitation when done with swords of varying weights.

Or maybe they don't because there's no evidence to suggest healing properties. Maybe they don't investigate things with no proof. Maybe they investigate things that are hinted at by phenomena that have been recorded and that build off other ideas instead of coming from a place of no evidence whatsoever.

I don't even fall on the scale. Dawkin's scale has been outdated since the 90s, possibly even before that.

PercyBoleyn:

Why should I have an opinion on God? I don't believe in him. My cutoff point is evidence and since nobody has been able to prove that he exists I'm going to continue wallowing in disbelief.

^[emphasis added]

I don't know what that sounds like to you, but to me, that sounds like your answer is worded about as closely as possible to fit into the definition of 6 without actually being the definition itself. Yes, I know you're going to say 'No, I simply don't believe', but it really does just sound like you're arguing semantics, as others have pointed out.

keiskay:

mdk31:

Jean Hag:
5 , nobody proved the unexistance or existance.
If you have a concrete proof call me up.

Burden of proof isn't on those who don't believe something exists. When someone says, "God exists," it's up to them to prove it. It's not up to atheists to prove the opposite.

actually the only people who can honestly avoid burden of proof are agnostics and apatheist. since they make no claims either way, so depending on the context of discussion and who the opponent is the atheist will very likely have to provide burden of proof when faced with an apatheist or pure agnostic.

I could very well be wrong, but I'm somewhat certain that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim, i.e. 'X exists', not 'X doesn't exist'.

Mortai Gravesend:
Which is why scientists investigate the healing properties of decapitation when done with swords of varying weights.

This requires the existence of literally hundreds of thousands of years of accumulated scientific knowledge. At least an understanding of the basics of the human body, basic medicine, basic scientific principles such as deduction and research. It then also requires an understanding of mining, metallurgy, smelting, moulding, sharpening, and the principles of crafting, as well as their ancestral technologies.
None of which existed at the beginning of our species' ascent up the scientific ladder.

The point remains: if evidence is required for belief, and without belief one must act in the negative, than no one should have ever acted for we had no evidence of anything.
No experiments. No research. No accumulation of knowledge of any kind.
Obviously, we did act without evidence. We did experiment. We did research and accumulate scientific knowledge.
Therefore, Atheism is not the "default" for a human being. If it's not the default, it requires knowledge. If it requires knowledge, and bases' it's fundamentals in "I do not believe in things without evidence, and act as if things without evidence do not exist" than it contradicts it's own position:
It requires evidence in order to reach it's conclusion, however it requires evidence before belief, and inaction without belief, thus preventing the collection of the very same evidence that enables one to reach it's conclusion.
It is circular in the negative; that is, without an alpha point.

I identify as an agnostic atheist, and the strength of those sides tends to vary depending on how I feel on any given day... so somewhere between 6 and 7 depending on how many street preachers I've walked past recently

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked