Do you believe in god?

[stopbush]

Poll question: Do you believe in god?

Non-denominational question.

God defined as a higher power/authority, the force, supernatural - whatever.

Vote below.

[CPschem]

1. don't know n/t

[stopbush]

3. It's a shit-or-get-off-the-pot question.

That's why I didn't provide a "maybe" option.

Gun to the head - yes or no?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

7. Well, if you're putting a gun to my head

The answer is "Yes"

Can't be too careful, you know!

[ConcernedCanuk]

9. It's a shit-or-get-off-the-pot question." - hmm -that's Juniors attitude

.
.
.

"You're with us or your against us"

Sorry, doesn't fly with me . . .

Therefore I just have to say I have not lived long enough, and may NOT live enough to study the dozens of religions and related thinking on all different views to make an educated decision ..

so - I'm on the pot,

I ain't had my dump yet

and I'm STAYING on my pot!

right . . .

I didn't vote

[stopbush]

11. Not voting is certainly an acceptable option

in this particular poll.

[ixion]

10. sort of leaves agnostics out of the mix

by forcing a yes or no question. ;-)

[stopbush]

12. You are correct.

I'll leave that for a different poll.

[Az]

19. Not really

Its not a question of what you know. Its a question of what you believe at this moment. You cannot both have a belief in god or gods and not have a belief in god or gods. Knowing and believing are two different things.

Do you at this moment believe there is a god or gods.

Now anyone that claims they know either case to be true has a different argument and I would love to hear their justification for their claiming to know it.

[pmbryant]

21. But you can have neither belief

You cannot both have a belief in god or gods and not have a belief in god or gods.

It's quite possible to have neither belief. I kind of thought that was pretty close to the definition of an 'agnostic', but I am definitely no expert on these matters.

--Peter

[Az]

24. Definitions are important

Theism is the positive claim. That is it is the one proposing something. Atheism is not on its own a positive claim. It is merely a declaration of ones current status. That is someone that does not currently positively believe in god or gods. It comes from the word theist which means someone that believes in god or gods. The prefix 'a' simply means 'without'. Atheist is someone without belief in god or gods. Its as simple as that.

Thus if someone were to insist that Smurfs were real and you did not believe this claim but could not disprove it you would be an asmurfist.

[pmbryant]

30. Hmmm

Is this meant to be a response to my post? I'm not concerned with the definition of 'theist' and 'atheist', merely 'agnostic'. (I do want to point out, though, that your definition of atheist is quite different from that one I found at dictionary.com.)

Myself, I neither believe in god, nor believe in the lack of god, so I'm not sure how I fit into your concept that you describe in another post that "at any given moment you either do or do not believe in god or gods." This is not true.

--Peter

[Az]

33. You don't have to

believe in not believing in god. It goes to logic. You do not have to spend time not believing in smurfs for example. You simply do not have a belief in smurfs. As such you are an asmurfist. But because there are not a notable contingent of people claiming that smurfs do exist (smurfists) the fact that you do not believe in smurfs is unnotable.

Theists on the other hand are relavant in our society. Thus your lack of shared belief places you in the atheist column. This does not mean that you have to join any clubs or anything. It does not mean you have to post logical arguments defending your position. It just means you do not have a belief in god or gods at this moment.

[pmbryant]

36. That's not the standard definition of 'atheist' though

The definition of 'atheist' at dictionary.com is this:

One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (from American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition, 2000)

That doesn't fit my beliefs at all.

EDIT: I'm kind of confused how we got off track onto the matter of whether I'm an atheist or not.

EDIT AGAIN: Ok, I think I may have pinpointed some of the confusion. I take the phrase 'I don't believe in X' to mean 'I disbelieve in X'. I think this is actually common usage, so my leap was justified. But I think that started the confusion.

--Peter

[Az]

40. Unfortunately

Dictionaries can carry biases too. Go to the epistymology of the words. All you need to know is there.

Theism - Belief in god or gods.

'a' - Prefix meaing without.

Atheism - Without a belief in god or gods.

Gnostic - To know a thing. This is in the absolute sense of the word.

Agnostic - To not know for certain.

A person can be a combination of Theism/Atheism and Gnostic/Agnostic.

Gnostic Theist is someone that believes in god or gods and has absolute knowledge of their existance.

Agnostic Theist is someone that believes in god or gods but does not have absolute knowledge of their existance.

Gnostic Atheist is someone that does not have a belief in god or gods and has an absolute knowledge of whether this is true.

Agnostic Atheist is someone that does not have a belief in god or gods and does not have absolute knowledge of whether this is true.

It may seem like this is beating a dead horse and I appologise for that. But there are clear ideas here that are clouded by semantics. Tossing aside the words someone either does or does not have a belief in god or gods. This is a clear idea. This goes to the intent of the question. Do you believe in god? If you do not believe in god then the answer is no. You do not have to believe in not believing for it to be true. It simply is a state of condition. If you do not believe in god then you do not believe in god.

Sorry for dragging this issue around so much but I treasure clarity.

[pmbryant]

42. Well, ignoring dictionary definitions can cause confusion...

since dictionary definitions generally coincide with the meaning most people give to a word. More people use the categories 'theist', 'agnostic', 'atheist' as defined in the dictionary then in the way you define them above.

I think my beliefs are more properly described by the dictionary definition of 'agnostic' then by any of the 4 categories you present above.

Here is the dictionary definition of 'agnostic':

(1a) One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
(1b) One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

I fit in the (1a) category most closely.

My main problem with the categories you define is that I feel 'absolute knowledge' is an impossible standard to meet. Therefore everyone is 'agnostic' by your definition, and your categories reduce to a choice between theism and atheism, which does not reflect the full diversity of beliefs on this subject.

--Peter

[Az]

45. The question at hand

The question was specifically "Do you believe in god?"

And incidently yes, logically everyone is an agnostic(with a possible exception of someone that has truly experienced god). Atheism and Theism merely provide some base information. It provides no information about anything else other than the presense or absense of belief in a god or gods. We know nothing about sects, denominations, reasons, logic, or rational for their arrival at their position. It is merely reflective of what their current accumulation of knowledge and experience lead them to believe or not believe at the moment.

[pmbryant]

46. Yes

I now realize that if I had taken the question quite literally, I could have answered 'no', even with my belief that any such god is unknowable.

But it is common in our language to use the phrase 'I don't believe in ...' to mean the same thing as 'I disbelieve in...' and that is why I refused to answer 'no'.

--Peter

[ConcernedCanuk]

20. heck, - I guess we should be used to unbalanced polls by now !

.
.
.

[rock]

6. If you don't know, then you don't

There's no middle ground about beliefs.

[pmbryant]

2. Unknowable

Why no choice for that? I can't truthfully answer yes or no.

--Peter

[psychopomp]

5. Your own beliefs should not be unknowable

However, one cannot say one's own beliefs are certainly true.

On edit: I didn't vote.

[pmbryant]

8. My belief is that the answer is unknowable

I am quite aware of that belief. :-)

--Peter

[psychopomp]

16. The q is do you believe

not is there a GOD.

[psychopomp]

18. Belief: is nor not is

Agnostics would say that belief: not is

Again, I did not vote; I like the hairsplitting, though.

[prolesunited]

41. Very Socratic of you, Peter.

:hi:

[pmbryant]

44. Thank you...

I think. ;-)

:hi:

--Peter

[corporatewhore]

4. of course i believe in Me

;)

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. Sorta

I mean, if it's just a belief, what's the harm in believing in God? It's not like there's another option.

I don't know if there is a God, but I see no point in believing there isn't.

[Goldberg]

14. Of course I believe in God and that He exists.

[stopbush]

17. Are you as sure it's a "He?" What about She and/or It?

Just asking.

[Goldberg]

25. Well...God is referred to as "He" in the Bible...

[Az]

26. You are reading

a translation of a translation of a translation. You sure they got it right? :evilgrin:

[Goldberg]

27. I don't know...

I'm just reading what's there.

[Az]

29. No worries

For that is all any of us really now.

[Salviati]

49. When I refer to god as he:

It should be taken more as almost an affront to masculinity, or at least the stereotypical view of it. I use "he" because my belief of god supposes a kind of traditional paternal relationship between the creator and his creation. Sort of a "Well my job here is done, come back and talk to me when you're interesting..." kind of attitude. I can't speak for others, but as far as I'm concerned, I deliberately choose to use masculine pronouns to reflect this relationship.

[Kamika]

55. I don't think you can place a gender on God

The reason God is referred to as "he" in the bible is of course because it was written at a time when women were as best seen as sub humans.. I mean it would be as unthinkable back then to call God a she, as calling God today a monkey.


Imo God does not have a gender, I say he out of habit, but if he has a gender it means something created him and if that's the case he isn't God.

[arwalden]

15. To Clarify My Answer: I Do Not Believe That Gods Exist

The wording of a "do you believe in" type of question can often be misunderstood (both to the person answering the question and the person doing the analysis on the results.)

Am I to interpret that question as "do I believe that gods exist"?

Or am I to interpret that question as one that pre-assumes the actual existence of (a) God and which is asking "do I 'trust-in' god"?

I've seen/heard/read others who try to twist the words of someone who says "I-don't-believe-in-god" into some sort of acknowledgment that an almighty god exists and such a statement is merely a rejection of that god.

It's all very confusing and I find the logic of it difficult to follow.

-- Allen

[DIKB]

22. What about ?

The Easter Bunny ?
Santa Claus ?
The Invisible Pink Unicorn ?
The Elves in Clouds that cause Rain ?

Put a gun to my head and my answer is the same as whether WMDs existed in Iraq that justified the loss of our American Soldiers.

There hasn't been proof of either, so taking an affirmative stance is garbage.

[Az]

23. Knowing vs Believing

There is a common assumption that knowing a thing and believing are the same thing. This is completely wrong. Believing a thing is your current assumption of a matter based on all your life experiences. You either do or do not believe a thing. Knowing a thing is entirely different.

Knowing a thing is a completely different order of criteria. In matters such as this question it virtually rises to unapproachable levels. That is to say no one potentially can Know if there is a god or not. We can only ascertain this issue to a limited degree.

Let us examine the issues before us. To claim to know there is a god one would have to directly experience god in such a way that no other explanation is possible other than it was god. The brain/mind are far too complex to rule out an entire host of anamolies. Everything from delusions to galatic pranks block one from attaining absolute certainty that what they experienced was in fact god. This does not mean that such experiences are not very convincing. But they do not approach absolute certainty.

From the other side of the argument you have a different problem. One can argue that god is an unlikely thing but in order to claim to know there is no god one would have to have complete knowledge of the entire universe and beyond. This position is impossible. Again the best one can hope for is a very certain but not absolute position.

The upshot of this is that if you run across someone that claims there absolutly is/isn't a god they probably do not understand the ramifications of what they are talking about. If they claim they absolutly do/don't believe in god they probably have a grasp of the logical issue.

PS Beliefs can change in a moment. Thus if you are not terribly certain about the existance of god it may waiver from moment to moment. But at any given moment you either do or do not believe in god or gods.

[rucky]

28. Yep!

http://www.alanwatts.com/essential_aw3.html

Alan:
On GOD
The difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that the old-fashioned idea of God has become incredible or implausible. When we look through our telescopes and microscopes, or when we just look at nature, we have a problem. Somehow the idea of God we get from the holy scriptures doesn't seem to fit the world around us, just as you wouldn't ascribe a composition by Stravinsky to Bach. The style of God venerated in the church, mosque, or synagogue seems completely different from the style of the natural universe. It's hard to conceive of the author of the other.

Me: Once you take it oustide the box of conventional religion, it's easy to see that God is everywhere & everytime & everything & no-thing.

[Beaker]

31. no. and even if there is, he/she isn't worthy of worship-

take the christian god(BTW- i chose the christian god because that is the one i was raised with and the only one with which i have a working familiarity)- we're supposed to put the fate of our eternal souls in the trust of the words of admittedly sinful men who lived 2000 years ago, when no reliable medium for recording words and images had yet been invented.
and if you choose not to believe these ancient, unsubstantiated claims, but rather believe all of the available verifiable evidence as to our descendency- this supposedly 'loving god' will banish you to eternal pain and torment in a place called hell? eternal torment? when he/she could apparently just as easily simply put an end to your existence- "poof" no eternal soul left to enter paradise, but also no soul sent to eternal torment...but no- this god, the "loving" god chooses eternal torment...and these people want us to worship the sick bastard?

and while we're on the topic- just why in the fucking world would he create pedophiles?
and allow people to commit attrocities in his name?(the crusades, the inquisition, the slaughter of the indiginous populations of the Americas)

if there is a god, he owes us a lot of explaining before he should expect any level of respect, let alone worship and adulation.
I for one would like to know who was consulted regarding the design of the human spine, among other parts and workings of the anatomy and psyche.

[Goldberg]

38. Take a walk in God's shoes for a second...

if you were to create people, and they didn't believe in you, then wouldn't you get pissed and want to banish them to eternal torment? Or how about people that walked around denouncing you...banish them to hell? I certainely would.

As for the pedophiles...yes, God did create the person...but not the person's actions. A person chooses to be a pedophile. God doesn't force a person to become one. Human actions/decisions are not the responsibility of God.

I hope this helps.

[Beaker]

47. two points...

"if you were to create people, and they didn't believe in you, then wouldn't you get pissed and want to banish them to eternal torment?..."

aside from the point that it's not a very loving or "turn the other cheek" kind of action that one might expect from a deity whose love and kindness supposedly surpasses all understanding- If i were god, I wouldn't expect people to believe in or even acknowledge my existence if I didn't give them some type of unambiguous proof that I did in fact exist- and lacking such evidence, I certainly wouldn't blame them for their doubts- especially considering the long line of false gods and prophets that the world has experienced/created.

"As for the pedophiles...yes, God did create the person...but not the person's actions. A person chooses to be a pedophile. God doesn't force a person to become one...".

ummmm...if god created the person, and instilled in this person a sexual desire for children- then yes, god created the pedophile. and if nobody told the peophile that pedophilia was wrong, how would thay know that, when they themselves have a natural sexual attraction for children- wouldn't they naturally assume this to be the norm, and perfectly acceptable?

one more theological question-
how does the 'golden rule': "do unto others as you would have it that they do unto you", apply to masochists?

[stopbush]

56. "...if you were to create people,

and they didn't believe in you, then wouldn't you get pissed and want to banish them to eternal torment?"

If you tell your kids to pick up their rooms and they don't, wouldn't you want to give them up for adoption...or send them to their deaths?

Do you really believe that an infinite "god" would be governed by the pettiness of human emotions? Of course, they are governed by such emotions if you believe in the Biblical version (I say "they" as the Bible states that god created man in "our image.")

[VOX]

32. Yes -- "The which than which there is no whicher"...

What Paul Tillich referred to as "the ultimate ground of being."

Not to get too new agey, but there is an intelligent energy at work in the universe: the galaxies spiral outward, water seeks its own level, you beat your own heart without thinking about it, you "shine" the stars with your eyes.

It goes by many names and faces, and can be called "god" or "God," or "divine reality," but if you look quickly, you will see yourself.

Hindu belief states "tat vam asi" -- meaning "that thou art," or "you are it!"

[CrownPrinceBandar]

34. The current Christian definition... No...

I lean towards an agnostic bent.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

35. I don't believe, but I have a good idea...

You people should watch Dogma if you haven't already. It's a great movie, and makes a lot of sense. And I know it's fiction and supposed to be funny, but it still makes a lot of sense.

Duckie

[Zero Gravitas]

37. I believe in a dog

[last_texas_dem]

39. Voted no

I'm an agnostic. I don't believe anyone can truly know whether there is a God or not. I truly want to have faith, but I've tried to and just can't convince myself in confidently saying I believe in God. I've felt like this since I was about eight or nine years old and don't see my beliefs really changing that much.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

43. It's too early to tell.

[nolabels]

48. Gnostic Theist that asked why does it matter

This could be funny or not, but if there is or there were not such thing(s)why would it matter?

Not that laughing at it could change it, but laughing at it could put it in perspective of why does it matter (to you personally).

Then they have these people who say they are serving god(s), how do they know that? Did it,him,she or they give them a message personally. Can they really share it? where is their proof this is so?

Born alone and mostly die alone, why the heck do we need others to tell us what God(s)is personally?

To me its a concept and or theory that I could never prove to anyone that to be true, yet no one can ever prove to me it isn't

The paradox of it all leads to ask , why does it matter?

[beanball]

50. I just said a prayer

for all of those that responded with a no answer.

[arwalden]

51. Why? What did you pray for?

[gyopsy]

52. Don't go there

:(

[gyopsy]

53. yes

even though I'm not terribly religous there has to be a higher power somewhere.

[Kazak]

54. I'm essentially a pantheist...

but I had to answer "no" for the way you worded the question.

[ButterflyBlood]

57. yes

almost 50/50, interesting.

[populistmom]

58. Yes, and here's what I wrote on the 'other' God thread

(because I have no other way to re-explain these thoughts in any other words I can think of at the moment):

Although a practicing Christian because I believe Jesus was an important teacher, I know that my human mind could only begin to conceptualize a small glimmer of what "God" actually is and I think Christianity itself only gives part of the picture, sometimes getting too wrapped up in dogma to see the forest for the trees. I believe, though in a spirit or universal energy of goodness that we can choose to be a part of or let guide us in a sense. One could call that God, or many other things, but I think it's probably much more really.

[Beaker]

59. Man created god in his image, not the other way around.

why would a supreme being be saddled with human emotions? jealousy, vindictiveness, wrath, hate, love...etc.?