Do you believe in god(s)? Poll #VI

[Sentinel]

It is time to restart the poll to get new viewpoints and to see how/if beliefs of users have changed. Do you believe God, or perhaps several gods? Vote!

See also the previous polls, which ran from 2004 to 2006 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t17856/index.html?t=17856&highlight=poll), 2006 to 2008 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/god-t46875/index.html), 2008 to 2010 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-believe-t72955/index.html?t=72955), 2010-2012 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-believe-t131150/index.html) and 2012-2015 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-believe-t172571/index.html).

If any discussions were interrupted, please continue them here.

Results of the last poll which had a total of 409 voters:

Yes 92 - 22.49%
No 258 - 63.08%
Uncertain 59 - 14.43%

[PhoenixAsh]

I am a God in the depths of my own thought. So yes.

[oneday]

The earlier polls were a different question. "Is there a God(s)?" and "Do you believe in God(s)?" are different questions. To the former, I say "I don't know.", to the later I say "No".

[motion denied]

Not only god exists, but he is alive and speaks Spanish.

OFVyME0B_xs

[Comrade Jacob]

I am a cultural pagan so I see the Gods as simply a metaphor for aspects of humanity.
I clicked no.

[StromboliFucker666]

Uncertain and have little desire to know.

I feel like I need to focus on the world around me and try to make it a better place. If a god is real, then I hope I have it's blessing. If it's not, then whatever. It's not something I think about anymore.

[RedAnarchist]

I voted uncertain. I don't think any deity that might exist is anything like any god that humanity believes in, but at the same time it is a possibility. However, as far as we know, death is final so if there is no afterlife then any deity that might exist would be unnecessary and certainly there would be no logical reason to worship her/him/it/they as they have no known effect on our world.

[ComradeViktor]

I'm not so bold as to claim that I know for a fact whether or not God exists. My opinion is that he doesn't exist. But what I can claim for a fact is that, until some literal evidence in favor or in opposition of God's existence presents itself, the question is rather irrelevant.

[Flavius]

“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man?” - old but gold.

Even if there was a god, I would not praise him/her.

[ZrianKobani]

I think so but, given the complexity of Trinitarianism, I have no idea how such a deity functions.

[Comrade Jacob]

I am a cultural pagan so I see the Gods as simply a metaphor for aspects of humanity.
I clicked no.

I still agree with what I said here to some degree but I do believe in the Gods.

[Kokayne]

The God according to religious dogma? Most likely no. Is there a God outside the boundaries of human imagination? Possibly. If so, he is cruel and doesn't serve justice in the material world.

[N. Senada]

No gods.
Just the eternal movement of the matter.

[ShadowStar]

I don't believe in god or a man in the heavens that watches above all.

[Zoop]

No I don't. I'm not even really interested in this question either. It's meant to be one of those "big" questions people are supposed to be interested in, but really, there's no evidence whatsoever to even suggest a deity exists, and that's all there is to it.

[LeninistIthink]

Not only god exists, but he is alive and speaks Spanish.

OFVyME0B_xs

You have converted me Pavel :grin:

[Vladmir]

:thumbdown: if you believe god is some big white dude with a beard, sitting on a cloud in the sky, no offense. But you must have severe autism

[Comrade Jacob]

:thumbdown: if you believe god is some big white dude with a beard, sitting on a cloud in the sky, no offense. But you must have severe autism

Great analysis on how religion developed. I guess half the world has "severe autism".

[Dave B]

I think when you are looking at the god and gods thing the general modern orthodox and in fact a-historical view is that God is an omnipotent interventionist; I think the technical term is intercessionist.
As regards christianity, as an example, it’s post 6th century theological position was that; as with the divine right of kings etc which was revised somewhat with the economic calvinistic notion of providence and grace etc.

The first materialists eg Democritus and Epicureans where described as Atheists, by the Christians and Roman pagans etc, not so much because they didn’t believe in god(s).

But because god(s) couldn’t be involved in the grubby reality of the material world we live in and would be above all and could not be responsible that kind of thing.

The whole argument is of course predicated or premised on the concept of god or gods.

The argument was done neatly, ‘logically’, and as it turns out apolitically, trans-historically by Steven Fry recently re ‘all creatures great and small’.

“Yes, the world is very splendid but it also has in it insects whose whole lifecycle is to burrow into the eyes of children and make them blind. They eat outwards from the eyes. Why? Why did you do that to us? You could easily have made a creation in which that didn’t exist. It is simply not acceptable.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/feb/01/stephen-fry-god-evil-maniac-irish-tv
Just before the emergence of christianity, immediately after 6AD when Judea etc was fully incorporated into the Roman socio-economic system, the Judaic community was faced with yet another problem.
There own interventionist omnipotent god had abandoned them, yet again, to the biggest and most successful overwhelming bunch of gobshites yet.
Some of them weren’t stupid and recognized it as something different from their previous parochial analysis of minor setbacks and the temporary punishment of god etc.
The Judiac apoplectic movement of the time thus promoted Satan from an imp like temptationist, like the witches in Macbeth, into a ruler of the earth and material world which had an impact on the development of very early proletarian christianity.
This isn’t just dingbat theology it is about new economic bases or positions, in this case new forms of imperialistic oppression, determining super-structual ideology.

Or having to rethink things according to, and to accommodate, new realities that are in your face too much.

The bastards are in charge.
My god isn’t a bastard.
Satan is a bastard.
Ergo Satan is in charge.
Why is another matter which tested the intellectual powers of the early christian Marcionites.
The idea is preserved in Luke;
5 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. 6 And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendour; it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. 7 If you worship me, it will all be yours.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+4:1-13
The idea translates into a class analysis ie the ruling class are servants of Satan and the worshippers of mammon etc whilst the poor etc are the children of god blah blah.





God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, then he is weak – and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful – which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful, and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?
— Lactantius, De Ira Deorum


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes and I believe this (https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html) which sums up a lot of what I believe. In addition to Christian Orthodoxy, I borrow some elements of Sufi/Shi'a thought and Qabbalah.

[xtrmntr]

i'm agnostic at the moment. (so clicked uncertain)
i was brought up as a christian (catholic) but in a very non-religious household. the older i became the more athiest i got but personal circumstances has me looking for a maybe (or a hopefully) ....

the thing is, there is evil. i witness/suffer it daily and what i keep reminding myself of is the quote by george clooney's character (seth gecko) in 'from dusk til dawn': (:) :grin:)

"And if there is a hell, and those sons of *****es are from it, then there has got to be a heaven... Jacob, there's gotta be."

i see what can be defined as satan's work and hand all over but i have yet to be reassured or see/have god's touch on anything to counter this evil.

[Comrade Jacob]

Yes and I believe this (https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html) which sums up a lot of what I believe. In addition to Christian Orthodoxy, I borrow some elements of Sufi/Shi'a thought and Qabbalah.

I used to read into Sufi thought quite a bit, very interesting and beautiful. :)

[cyu]

i see what can be defined as satan's work and hand all over but i have yet to be reassured or see/have god's touch on anything to counter this evil

If you only see darkness around you, it is because you are the light.

[Comrade Jacob]

If you only see darkness around you, it is because you are the light.

That's deep

[Vee]

Uncertain. There is no proof of god but it is possible that we just do not know of it's existence. If there is a god then it is either evil or is horrible at it's job.

[Sobornost]

I believe in God, and am an Orthodox Christian from the United States. I am also an unabashed supporter of the former Soviet Union and of Comrade Stalin, and a Marxist-Leninist. I feel no real contradiction in this.

[The Feral Underclass]

I believe in God, and am an Orthodox Christian from the United States. I am also an unabashed supporter of the former Soviet Union and of Comrade Stalin, and a Marxist-Leninist. I feel no real contradiction in this.

What do you propose be done with gay people? Obviously the Bible say it's a sin and the Soviet Union under Stalin outlawed it.

[Sobornost]

What do you propose be done with gay people? Obviously the Bible say it's a sin and the Soviet Union under Stalin outlawed it.

Funny thing I just can't get too worked up about late Capitalist period identity politics to have an opinion other than what you already answered for me, instead I want to focus on how to restore Communism and the Soviet Union politically. I do draw a distinction between 'homosexual orientation' and various acts which need not coincide, so again I would rather not focus on said acts or on people's personal moral conundrums and instead on the very real social evils of Capitalism and Neo-Imperialism that have run rampant since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

If you want to fall into the Capitalist ideological trap for the false 'Left' and focus on such things as homosexual 'identity politics', then such is your choice. I choose to not be diverted by the Plutocrats and their games.

[cyu]

Totally off-topic, but reminds me of a recent discussion.

Seems the difference between someone who is not attracted to any women, and someone who is attracted to only one woman, is that one woman.

The opposite of someone who is not attracted to any women, is probably someone who is attracted to all women.

Back on topic: Like those discussions where an atheist doesn't believe in any god, as opposed to those who only believe in one God - I guess the true opposite of an atheist is someone who believes in all gods :laugh:

[The Feral Underclass]

Funny thing I just can't get too worked up about late Capitalist period identity politics to have an opinion other than what you already answered for me, instead I want to focus on how to restore Communism and the Soviet Union politically. I do draw a distinction between 'homosexual orientation' and various acts which need not coincide, so again I would rather not focus on said acts or on people's personal moral conundrums and instead on the very real social evils of Capitalism and Neo-Imperialism that have run rampant since the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.

If you want to fall into the Capitalist ideological trap for the false 'Left' and focus on such things as homosexual 'identity politics', then such is your choice. I choose to not be diverted by the Plutocrats and their games.

So your view of homosexuality is that it is a bourgeois "identity" and a diversionary game of plutocrats? Well, for a start, homosexuality pre-dates capitalism, which is why it is referenced in the book that contains your religious guidance. It is also not an identity, it is a sexual orientation; it is no more an identity than being a heterosexual.

You call yourself an Orthodox Christian and a Stalinist. Both of these things take a very specific and articulated position on homosexuality. It is therefore not enough for you to simply say that you don't want to get "worked up" about it. If you identify as an Orthodox Christian and a Stalinist this presupposes that you have a view on what should be done with gay people.

I'll ask more straight-forwardly: Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it should be outlawed. These are simple questions that can be answered in the positive or the negative.

[Sobornost]

So your view of homosexuality is that it is a bourgeois "identity" and a diversionary game of plutocrats?

No. My view of 'homosexuality' is that it is an orientation and as such natural. But I draw a distinction between that orientation and the acts and behavior indulged in by some but not all homosexuals, and furthermore, between these things and the modern 'identity' of 'homosexuality' which is political organization, as if Homosexuals were a class with a class consciousness.



Well, for a start, homosexuality pre-dates capitalism, which is why it is referenced in the book that contains your religious guidance.

It's political identity is new, as if these people were a class with class interests.



It is also not an identity, it is a sexual orientation; it is no more an identity than being a heterosexual.

I disagree.



You call yourself an Orthodox Christian and a Stalinist. Both of these things take a very specific and articulated position on homosexuality.


They take a very specific and articulated position on various sexual acts.




It is therefore not enough for you to simply say that you don't want to get "worked up" about it.

If i'm not 'worked up' about something, I just can't be bothered with it as opposed to more important things, like Communist Revolution. Whatever my position is, it isn't that important, but Communist thought and political action is.



If you identify as an Orthodox Christian and a Stalinist this presupposes that you have a view on what should be done with gay people.


Yes, but with me that is assumed 'a priori ', and as I said, not very important in my consideration. The fact that it is important in so-called 'Leftist' thought of today is interesting however, because it really is a diversion, and suspiciously so for that reason.



I'll ask more straight-forwardly: Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin and that it should be outlawed.

Homosexuality cannot be outlawed and is not a sin, is personal; sodomitical acts are sinful and should also be outlawed.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Homosexuality cannot be outlawed and is not a sin, is personal; sodomitical acts are sinful and should also be outlawed.

I'm glad you finally copped to this position. Bye, have a miserable life as we sodomites destroy religion and the family.

[Zoop]

^^ What a moron.

[reviscom1]

I'm with Robespierre on this one.

[Sibotic]

Edit: As the user was banned, addressing a post to them seems more worthwhile. As that discussion might be over, you can treat this as some form of Christian PM, and carry on discussing what gods there are and what their nature might be.


But I draw a distinction between that orientation and the acts and behavior indulged in by some but not all homosexuals, and furthermore, between these things and the modern 'identity' of 'homosexuality' which is political organization, as if Homosexuals were a class with a class consciousness.
Wouldn't that 'orientation' have generally comprised people who wished to do such acts, however, which might make the distinction somewhat blurred? At a certain point you still might come across as overly positive towards the people who would generally try to do so, while condemning the actions, which seems problematic for a whole 'orientation,' and a problematic means to have stopped their movement towards where they wanted to go. I mean, some 'homosexuals' might have done something referred to, but that's hardly incidental to their being such. It's what gave their identity meaning.


If i'm not 'worked up' about something, I just can't be bothered with it as opposed to more important things, like Communist Revolution. Whatever my position is, it isn't that important, but Communist thought and political action is.This seems reasonable. Passion about such issues was in any case mediated by squabbling over arbitrary consent laws.


The fact that it is important in so-called 'Leftist' thought of today is interesting however, because it really is a diversion, and suspiciously so for that reason.This was a relevant point, although you might not always find that much discussion of such things here as in the left approximately 6-9 years ago, in which sense it might well not come up objectively. It doesn't really seem worth discussing that much past a certain point, however.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would ask that you explain your support for this banned homophobe, but I'm fairly certain we can't extract two meaningful sentences out of you.

[cyu]

Probably just trolling - or using reverse psychology on you ;)

[The Feral Underclass]

They are quoting Hitler in their signature.

[Sibotic]

Probably just trolling - or using reverse psychology on you ;)
By typing meaningful sentences?

At this point is it alright to show some interest in the newbie (which sounds like 'Nietzsche,' who is also there, and rumoured to be connected to the Nazis although what's your opinion on that?) with a similar name, who was first restricted and then immediately banned, and ignore the rest of the discussion mostly. I mean, since the third sentence is free we might as well note that it is, having this personal privilege.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

All of you homophobes, and people interested in defending homophobes, please.

Fuck off.

And die.

[tresha]

Yes, I believe in God because I experienced his wonder in my life.

[cyu]

It's just a naming convention. For example, let's say I had a dog that I named God - if I believe that my dog exists, then God exists. Let's say I invented a language in which "shell" translates into "wife", then if I believe my wife exists, then "my shell" exists.

Let's say that I believed that everything under the following hashtag is visible only to the people it's meant for:
#114seed
how would eye even know this isnt visible 2 those its not meant 4
maybe eye just have faith that those who r not ready 2 read this
wont c it
or else it would drive them insane xD
in my shell
eye m posting on n internet forum
but perhaps from the perspective of some1 else on the outside
looking in
eye look like eye m just making internet cat memes :laugh:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Believing in God is one thing, believing that there is a single divine tradition given to man by that God to guide us to wisdom, and that this tradition points towards the true nature of God, is something else.

[Che a chara]

i'm agnostic at the moment. (so clicked uncertain)
i was brought up as a christian (catholic) but in a very non-religious household. the older i became the more athiest i got but personal circumstances has me looking for a maybe (or a hopefully) ....

the thing is, there is evil. i witness/suffer it daily and what i keep reminding myself of is the quote by george clooney's character (seth gecko) in 'from dusk til dawn': (:) :grin:)

"And if there is a hell, and those sons of *****es are from it, then there has got to be a heaven... Jacob, there's gotta be."

i see what can be defined as satan's work and hand all over but i have yet to be reassured or see/have god's touch on anything to counter this evil.

(for the record, this above comment was by another account i created after i couldn't remember my log-in details for this account)

what about black magic ? if it exists would that not prove the existence of otherworldly higher and powerful entities ?

i've become increasingly convinced that such dark arts are real and that occultism is practised on a wide scale by the elite.

[Laika]

Voted Uncertain. I have long been an atheist and cin practice do not follow a religion or believe in god. I sympathise with atheistic satanism though because its morality is fairly materialist and compliments Marxism in some ways. But I'm not absolutely convinced there is no god and I do not feel I could prove that it is the case (though I would certainly like to just to settle the issue and be free of it).

[perardua]

Voted Uncertain. I have long been an atheist and cin practice do not follow a religion or believe in god. I sympathise with atheistic satanism though because its morality is fairly materialist and compliments Marxism in some ways. But I'm not absolutely convinced there is no god and I do not feel I could prove that it is the case (though I would certainly like to just to settle the issue and be free of it).

I think the question to be asked is not so much "can we be sure that there really is no god?" but rather "why should we assume there is one in the first place?".

As for satanism: I fail to see how this is conducive to emancipatory politics at all. Not saying there isn't some value to this impulse - for someone brought up in a spiritually suffocating environment where they were never allowed to state their own aims or wishes, a period of pure self-centeredness might be necessary to shatter those chains. But as an overall guiding principle? Satan is something like an alienated intellect: Someone who imagines themself to exist apart from the world. An example is in the Quran, where Satan, being pure spirit, refuses to embody himself in matter, because he will not accept the limitations this entails, and believes this would defile him. He holds the physical world in contempt. Including, of course, human beings, with all their weaknesses and imperfections.

The "freedom" of Satan is ultimately an adolescent or aristocratic freedom.

The Satanic Bible of LaVey is basically a fusion of Ayn Rand, Ragnar Redbeard, and the most elitist parts of Nietzsche. Atlas Shrugged - there's satanic morality in action. No thanks.

[CallInTheDogs]

I'm uncertain although I have an interest in paganism and to a lesser extent Laveyan Satanism

[GLF]

Unmoved mover? Maybe...no way to know for sure. Bearded man up in the clouds? No chance.

[Laika]

I think the question to be asked is not so much "can we be sure that there really is no god?" but rather "why should we assume there is one in the first place?". As for satanism: I fail to see how this is conducive to emancipatory politics at all. Not saying there isn't some value to this impulse - for someone brought up in a spiritually suffocating environment where they were never allowed to state their own aims or wishes, a period of pure self-centeredness might be necessary to shatter those chains. But as an overall guiding principle? Satan is something like an alienated intellect: Someone who imagines themself to exist apart from the world. An example is in the Quran, where Satan, being pure spirit, refuses to embody himself in matter, because he will not accept the limitations this entails, and believes this would defile him. He holds the physical world in contempt. Including, of course, human beings, with all their weaknesses and imperfections. The "freedom" of Satan is ultimately an adolescent or aristocratic freedom. The Satanic Bible of LaVey is basically a fusion of Ayn Rand, Ragnar Redbeard, and the most elitist parts of Nietzsche. Atlas Shrugged - there's satanic morality in action. No thanks. you're probably right about atheism, that it is a question of why accept the possibility of a god at all. In the case of satanism, certain aspects of it are compatible with materialism and Marxism, though it can never be dominant because of the egotism, individualism and (right-wing) libertarianism. le vey wasn't really original (as far as I know), but its an interesting compilation of various ideas. it is useful to counter the legacy of christian morality of "forced" and insincere altruism, ethical hedonism as subversive to moral restrictions and attacking various hypocrisies and sharpen the edge on a militant atheist and materialist morality. I think it has some value as an attack on christian morality and to a lesser extent on liberal humanist morality (as derivative of it) but it can't be the whole picture. As I've never really read anything coming from the right and was influenced by Christianity as a kid, I still found it pretty thought provoking though.

[Yulquen]

I'm an atheist.

[GLF]

Satanists are National Socialists. All of them. The ones I've seen, at least. Destroy the weak. Dominate. Amelioration of the species. That type of shit. Fuck Satan and fuck satanism.

Though I'm not religious, if you absolutely had to find a religious precept, then Book of Acts based Christianity is a 100% more compatible with communism than Satanism could ever be.

Hold all things in common, to each as he has need, serve widows in their affliction, let he who is strongest be your servant, etc, etc. Satan with his "liberation of the strong" bullshit can go fuck himself.

[mr perfidy]

Thank you, exactly^

The church of Satan is kinda big among philly scene people and it's an obvious circle jerk for kids that want to relate to Sean Hannity but are fuckup, ugly mediocre outcastes from their families, nevertheless eagerly reproducing their inherited class entitlement rationalization impulses.