The Theist - Agnostic - Atheist Poll

I'm a fairly strong Atheist, however I honestly don't think it matters in a well developed civil and secular society. I accept that no-one can be 100% sure about anything at the present moment, which technically makes me Agnostic. It's all very so-so for me.

Edited by Any Colour You Like - November 30 2009 at 14:13

Kestrel wrote: atheism is the absence of a belief in God

I disagree. As an atheist I not only not believe in God ... I deny its existence. I'm certain that it is a delusion.

Considering the number of spots available for any given poll I was thinking lumping Agnostic/Deist together was wrong.

^ I just think having Agnostic as a seperate option would have been nice, since I honestly don't consider myself a Deist anymore, yet not quite an Atheist. I'm admitting that I don't know one way or the other, yet according to this poll, I'm either a believer of some sort, or I am not. No middle ground has been given as an option, yet many people including myself consider themselves to be just that.

^ Deists believe in a god that doesn't interfere with life (or the universe in general) ... in my opinion that makes deists atheists in daily life. On the other hand it makes them theists because they believe in the existence of a god that there exists no evidence of, which is not really compatible with the guiding principle of most atheists: to rely only on scientifically sound theories.

I find myself on 6 on Dawkin's scale...You can NEVER be 100% certain, but probability highly favours the non-existence of (a) God, at least as (a) God as we learned through tradition. 

OK, here we go.

Edited by npjnpj - December 01 2009 at 02:11

npjnpj wrote: OK, here we go.   1) I believe in God, or a God, whatever.   2) Organised religion of any kind is a big stinking pile of poo and makes me angry.   3) God is not far away, in fact he's near all the time and I can see his presence around me every day, and not even in a concealed way. I'd have to be friggin' blind not to acknowledge his presence.   4) God is a pratical joker with quite a mean streak now and then.   5) I'm not at all certain that my God is the same as that of other people, or many other people actually have one too.

I'm not undermining your sincerity here, but you have just unwittingly diagnosed an imaginary friend ?

Physician heal thyself etc

Dean wrote: I don't think saying "'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one" is that difficult for an athiest given that most theists, agnostics and atheists can say that there is no Ra, Horus, Apollo, Zeus, Perseophone, Baccus, Freya, Odin, Loki, Eostur, Pan, Ceres, Demeter, Kali, Sedna, Quetzalcoatl etc... with a reasonable degree of conviction.

It's really difficult to find the right words though, isn't it? For example, if I said "I don't believe in God" that would trigger a certain response by religious people, claiming that I simply lost my faith, or am in a phase of rejecting God. If I said "I know for a fact that God doesn't exist" then religious people would dare me to prove it to them, which leads to the "gap problem" which works either way (theist/atheist), depending on how you use it.

I think that the most important message that new atheism should convey is that especially with the judeo-christian god there are so many examples of logical mistakes and false statements in the holy books and scriptures that for a clear-thinking person, looking at all the data without prejudice, there is no way to accept it as true. And that of course is highly controversial with religious people and perceived as an "attack", even when all we are doing is to encourage people to look at the evidence and draw their own conclusion.

^ I guess your point is that moderated religion should not be criticised by atheists, as opposed to fundamentalist/creationist people. Well, I disagree ... either God exists or not, there can't be any middle ground. God is - in most religions - described as an infallible, all knowing, omnipotent, immortal being. Those are all superlatives, with no "wiggle-room" for interpretation. Modern religions seem to me like an apologetic attempt to delay the breakdown of a system that has already been watered down over the ages. Today many religious people accept science in their every day life, using it to do things that would clearly have been identified as satanic/unholy a couple of centuries ago. You can't have your cake and eat it too!


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - December 01 2009 at 09:02