(Non)Belief

[Elect Marx]

Where do you fit in? Please review the choices carefully and understand them first.

Definitions
(for the purposes of the poll, please assume these are right or post your objection)


*Parenthesis below denotes with and without

Believer: Supernatural forces exist; whether Gnostic and/or mono/poly-theist.

Strong Agnostic: We cannot prove god(s) (non)existence.

Weak Agnostic: god(s) could exist and could be provable but only if god(s) existent.

Weak Agnostic & Weak Atheist: god(s) could exist and could be provable but do(es)n’t exist as far as we can tell.

Weak Atheist: god(s) do(es)n’t exist as far as we can tell.

Strong Atheist: god(s) do(es)n’t exist.

Please do not start debates on this polling thread. If you would like to debate the validity of atheism/agnosticism, please do so in Agnosticism (Debate it) or another aptly named thread and if you would like to debate matters of belief, please do that elsewhere as well.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I opted for "weak agnostic/atheist."

I cannot see an almighty power at work here or anywhere, but I have no proof. My worldview is atheistic. Better to err on the side of "do it yourself" rather than waiting for an omnipotent power to come and save you.

I hope more people vote in this poll.

[RedAnarchist]

i would say weak agnostic/atheist as well. I dont know if there is any sort of "god", although i am leaning slightly towards Atheism.

[t_wolves_fan]

I voted that I'm an absolute believer in this poll. I can logically believe in it because I can provde it exists.



Actually I chose option #2.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan@May 6 2005, 06:29 AM
I can logically believe in it because I can provde it exists.



Actually I chose option #2.

Lies are funny.

I too chose "weak agnostic/atheist," good to see the support for a logical materialist position :hammer:

[FriedFrog]

Unsure / Doubting.

Religion makes less and less sense to me every day. I&#39;m struggling to hold a belief in something Almighty. <_<

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by NoMan,NoProblem@May 8 2005, 06:11 AM
Unsure / Doubting.

Religion makes less and less sense to me every day. I&#39;m struggling to hold a belief in something Almighty. <_<

Hard times comrade...

PM me if ever you want to talk belief. I&#39;ve been there and it is good to be free of it... hell getting out though.

[Elect Marx]

Well... it seems we now have 15 dogmatists out of 27 people (assuming no one has proof a god exists :P)

Now we seem to be up to 21/37...

I know we have more voters around&#33;

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX+May 7 2005, 12:33 AM--> (313C7 iVi4RX @ May 7 2005, 12:33 AM)

t_wolves_fan

@May 6 2005, 06:29 AM
I can logically believe in it because I can provde it exists.



Actually I chose option #2.

Lies are funny.

I too chose "weak agnostic/atheist," good to see the support for a logical materialist position :hammer: [/b]

According to you, our position shouldn&#39;t be logical because we can&#39;t prove that it&#39;s correct.

[Rage]

Other. Buddhists dont have a god(s). But I think there is a posibility that there is one.


/,,/
Rock on&#33;

[apathy maybe]

Actually (afaik) Buddhists (or at least traditional ones) believe in the whole lot of gods that Hindus believe in. But they just don&#39;t think they matter much in the scheme of things.

I voted for the last option (other). The reason why is that I don’t have any belief or dis-belief in a god or gods. I guess that could count as agnostic, but I don’t actually care, where as I think that agnostics do care.

Another problem is what is a god? Is it an all-knowing all-seeing all-powerful being? Is it simply a creator? Or a being that has control over a certain part of the natural world (a sea god or a thunder god)?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I&#39;m pretty sure I posted before in this thread. Where the helll did it go?

I believe there is suffecient lack of evidence to say that god does not exist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by NoXion@May 19 2005, 03:10 AM
I&#39;m pretty sure I posted before in this thread. Where the helll did it go?

It was moved to the " Agnosticism (Debate it)" thread as we discussed.

I believe there is suffecient lack of evidence to say that god does not exist.

I thought you were a strong atheist; change your mind?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What makes a strong atheist then? If not believing that religion is detrimental to human development and that god doesn&#39;t exist, then what?

I don&#39;t like this &#39;strong atheist, weak athiest&#39; schtick. It smacks of an attempt to marginalise outspoken atheists by absurdly labeling them &#39;fundamentalist&#39;.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by NoXion@May 19 2005, 04:11 AM
What makes a strong atheist then?

Did you read the thread?

Weak Atheist: god(s) do(es)n’t exist as far as we can tell.

Strong Atheist: god(s) do(es)n’t exist.

If not believing that religion is detrimental to human development and that god doesn&#39;t exist, then what?

Wha? You said:

I believe there is suffecient lack of evidence to say that god does not exist.

You can just theorize that god doesn&#39;t exist but that wouldn&#39;t be a "Strong Atheist," as they assert (with or without proof) that god DOES NOT EXIST; period.

I don&#39;t like this &#39;strong atheist, weak athiest&#39; schtick. It smacks of an attempt to marginalise outspoken atheists by absurdly labeling them &#39;fundamentalist&#39;.

Not at all; I respect non-religious people for standing up against theocratic stigmas.
Doesn&#39;t this more effectively categorize people&#39;s (non)beliefs?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Did you read the thread?

You can just theorize that god doesn&#39;t exist but that wouldn&#39;t be a "Strong Atheist," as they assert (with or without proof) that god DOES NOT EXIST; period.

An atheist that asserts that god doesn&#39;t exist without evidence, while correct, is classed as an &#39;idiot&#39;.

An atheist, who if presented with conclusive proof that god exists (Yet to be found) and still states that god exists is also an idiot, and an idiot who&#39;s going to hell at that.

Blindly non-believing is as bad as blindly believing.

I feel that all that one has to do qualify as an atheist is simply not believe. There is no need to complicate matters because atheists come from all walks of life, come in all colors, nationalities, and creeds.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by NoXion@May 19 2005, 06:35 AM

You can just theorize that god doesn&#39;t exist but that wouldn&#39;t be a "Strong Atheist," as they assert (with or without proof) that god DOES NOT EXIST; period.

An atheist that asserts that god doesn&#39;t exist without evidence, while correct, is classed as an &#39;idiot&#39;.

I agree and I would call them dogmatic and illogical; on a side note: are you calling RS2K an idiot? He is the prime example here of someone claiming GOD DOESN"T EXIST, without proof. You don&#39;t have to answer that one...heck, you could PM me you fear his retaliation but I would defend you on this one as RS insults people all the time just for disagreeing with him, I think "turning the tables" is only fair.

You did not answer my question: Doesn&#39;t this more effectively categorize people&#39;s (non)beliefs?

An atheist, who if presented with conclusive proof that god exists (Yet to be found) and still states that god exists is also an idiot, and an idiot who&#39;s going to hell at that.

Yes; if "god" sees fit but wouldn&#39;t that make them a lying theist?

Blindly non-believing is as bad as blindly believing.

I agree in the sense of rational conclusions, though in consequences or general lack of evidence; atheism would be the "best choice," though choosing makes no sense.

I feel that all that one has to do qualify as an atheist is simply not believe. There is no need to complicate matters because atheists come from all walks of life, come in all colors, nationalities, and creeds.

That sounds more like the definition of a non-believer. If atheism can be defined as such; that would change matters but why rewrite the definition?

This is the definition I have seen and I don&#39;t see why we should try to change the common usage as I believe it is correctly used.

a•the•ism (³“th-¹z”…m) n. 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

[farleft]

Strong atheist

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by farleft@May 27 2005, 07:36 AM
Strong atheist

Why are you the only one not elaboration on your position?

[OleMarxco]

Because (strong) atheism needs no elaboration in the larger sense, of it&#39;s position. They just think it is, because it ain&#39;t -- and that the universe is just randomly put-togheter pieces, with no utter coherence by some super-powerful creator with a thoughtful mind to everything.....

Or just because believing in God is too time-consuming, and they&#39;re too lazy/"busy" to devote time to a religion they&#39;re lives... So simple as that, if I am allowed to speak for someone else
So guess what I chose