POLL: Is there a god?

RIP A Nairn, heaven needed a...uh, devout Christian.

lets show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown

You forgot the I am Zod choice.

(atheist represente!)

Where is "I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'God' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct"?

option 2

rong

that you, Santy Claus?

as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct

Do we really need this construct to be kind and responsible people? I certainly hope not. The invention of a supreme being is "useful" to those who would place themselves 'closer to God than thee' for a variety of reasons, the moist innocuous of which is 'heaven' (no, you are going into the ground or into a furnace, get over it) and the most insidious of which are probably Puritan predestination or the use of God as emotional blackmail/call to arms over large numbers of less literate/moneyed people.

All 'holy' books are myths to me; they attempt with varying degrees of success to understand and invent antecedents for most human behaviour.

option 6

Do we really need this construct to be kind and responsible people? I certainly hope not.

perhaps there are many who do. as constructs go, it's wildly popular.

The invention of a supreme being is "useful" to those who would place themselves 'closer to God than thee' for a variety of reasons

you believe this is true of everyone who believes in god/is religious/follows a spiritual practice? of the majority of them?

and being kind and responsible are not the sole purposes of religious/spiritual practice

http://scoopsnoodle.com/adam_schefter/adam_schefter15.jpg

option 1

perhaps you are very well adjusted and haven't considered the mindset of those who might be less well-adjusted? perhaps hoping that others would not need such a construct is another way of being 'holier than thou'?

Let me tell you, being happy to identify as an atheist doesn't do wonders for my adjustment, but I can think of a gazillion things I'd rather believe in than a supreme being.

jhoshea 8080

i voted "I am Isaac Asimov"

I can think of a gazillion things I'd rather believe in than a supreme being.

why is that?

cos it's idiocy?

sorry. harsh. but your previous comment was shit and pissed me off.

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/6503/churchsignmg4.jpg

belief, as I have mentioned before, is a redundant and pointless human emotion.

why? also, i'm not limiting things to a 'supreme being' as suzy is.

(xxpost)

srsly tho

"perhaps hoping that others would not need such a construct is another way of being 'holier than thou'?"

GRRRRRRR.

Yeah, I know Alan: perhaps monkeys will fly out Gabbneb's arse. The religious among you can pray for this - rest of you, get photoshopping!

it is in essence the same thing that suzy said about religious people (xp)

'realer than thou'

'there isn't a god' is still surely the right choice for people who think it helpful to maintain the pretence that there is one just to help keep sociah t azzahole in check.

I think many people on this thread are riding the high horses too much.

i'm sure she 'loves them just the same' tho

'there isn't a god' is still surely the right choice for people who think it helpful to maintain the pretence that there is one just to help keep sociah t azzahole in check.

as i said before this is not the only purpose of religion/spirituality, and these people are not 'maintaining a pretence,' nor do they necessarily believe in 'one' 'god'.

if i'm riding a high horse, it must be someone else's, as i'm not especially religious

I was not talking about you gabbneb.

i'm not limiting things to a 'supreme being' as suzy is.

option 5

"CREDULOUS FRAUDS, THE LOT OF YOU"

http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/44/446/446989/hitchensXart280.jpg

Dog is my co-pilot.

http://starling.rinet.ru/music/sleeves/zap_clapton.jpg

gabb - you should probably just list some reasons why people need the contruct, b/c everyone seems eager to finish your argument in a way that allows them to reject it.

I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'Elvis' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct.

I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'Zimmerman' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct.

I am well aware that there is no cosmic being/force/order that bears any relation to what is termed 'Beatles' or the equivalent in any human society, but as a 20th/21st century human being, I am nevertheless able to conceive/accept that it is useful for me and others to construct just such a being/force/order, whether or not I 'believe' or have 'faith' in that construct.

i just believe in schefter

juuuust meeeee aaaaand scheeeeefter !!!

God? I ain't got no god. I don't need no god. I don't have to show you any stinking god.

i voted not sure.

but i wish there was an option: "i dont believe in god but i wish i did"

http://scoopsnoodle.com/adam_schefter/yoko.jpg

!!!!!!!!!

I just believe in me. Yoko and me.

yeah yeah

wow wow wow guys that is v important

omg that is actually creeping me out

COSMIC SCHEFTER IS ALL

COSMIC SCHEFTER BROKE UP THE BEATLES

TOO BUSY BEIN' AGNOSTIC ABOUT A DING DONG

STOP TYPING SENSELESS SHIT YOU NIHILIST SON OF SATAN.

it seems to me that the major problem that agnostics have with atheism, with its certainty, is the latent authoritarianism in it. trading one form of dogmatic certainty for another strikes agnostics as a waste of time, and in pragmatic terms will lead to trouble down the line....i choose agnosticism because i think it's better than either option. it's like fixing a position of indeterminacy or uncertainty--yes this is paradoxical, but because of that paradox it's unstable and allows for the best decision making free of cant or dogma.

atheisism is a weapon to use against religion. it is nothing more to me. it doesnt even make sense with out religion, as noted above, it's caught in the same (bad) logic.

to this end i guess it's useful, but as an agnostic im just not interested in that fight anymore, and im likely to take either side under different circumstances. atheism and theism have a predetermined set of responses to any circumstances--agnosticism fixes uncertainty in the HOPES that this can be avoided. maybe it can, maybe it cant. but it still strikes me as teh best choice for now.

Is it a dogmatic certainty to say that there isn't alien life on Mercury?

Agnostics don't do anything based on the justification of God's existence. So what's your point?

What's the point of being agnostic?

Technically, I am agnostic in the sense that I understand that I cannot know. I reject the idea of god, because as a literal agnostic, the idea of god does not do anything for me.

ledge I do believe that, because theistic religions make more specific/obscure/outrageous arguments ("There is a man in the sky who makes laws and made the universe this way" requires more proof than the more general "There is no higher power"), though it really depends on how you define "theist," "atheist," "God," "existence," etc. I lean way more towards atheism than theism but mostly I just don't give much of a fuck because existence is completely absurd and beyond our logical comprehension no matter how you look at it, so I ticked the "I'm not sure" option in this poll and moved on with life.

its not authoritarian to be certain of things just because some religious nut says theyre uncertifiable by definition

it seems to me that the major problem that agnostics have with atheism, with its certainty, is the latent authoritarianism in it. trading one form of dogmatic certainty for another strikes agnostics as a waste of time

Again I think this is just a definition problem. Do you really think that if God came to earth, explained to all the 'athiests' how the earth was created, why it is logical to believe in HER, and gave concrete proof that there is a God, that athiests would shut there ears and say "no, no, I BELIEVE in No God?" I've never heard an athiest express their worldview in that way.

I think a lot of atheists and agnostics think the exact same way and just keep attacking each other for no reason because semantics is a bitch

I think a lot of atheists and agnostics think the exact same way and just keep attacking each other for no reason because semantics is a bitch

Yeah.

that's why I get furious when people say "I hate atheists" or "I hate agnostics" when they share those exact beliefs

Again I think this is just a definition problem. Do you really think that if God came to earth, explained to all the 'athiests' how the earth was created, why it is logical to believe in HER, and gave concrete proof that there is a God, that athiests would shut there ears and say "no, no, I BELIEVE in No God?" I've never heard an athiest express their worldview in that way.

Yeah, but then what if a bigger god came to earth and ate her up in one gulp and then the bigger god said, ok listen people, I am the ultimate god my word is the truth, not the tasty snack god.

I mean that's one of the tests of a mature religion--the ability to deal with the allowableness of god.

that was supposed to be "unknowableness".

I would still worship the tasty snack god. I generally worship anything tasty.

that's why I get furious when people say "I hate atheists" or "I hate agnostics" when they share those exact beliefs

I agree with this. In the absence of religion conflict / cleansing would still take place - human beings would simply use different markers to justify it - race, region, language, etc. Like Sudan for instance.

Like the Crips and the Bloods.

Do you really think that if God came to earth, explained to all the 'athiests' how the earth was created, why it is logical to believe in HER, and gave concrete proof that there is a God, that athiests would shut there ears and say "no, no, I BELIEVE in No God?"

this is a theist's wet dream

jackchick.jpg

And I say unto you, "Yay, I am the tasty snack God. Eat of me at snack time."

I bet the tasty snack God is made of graham crackers or Goldfish.

GIS result for tasty snack god

http://www.thechippie.com/images/chips/sun_chips_halloween.jpg

my tasty snack god would definitely be a donut or some other form of pastry

my tasty snack god would definitely be a donut or some other form of pastry

Looks like you and me are gonna have some religious conflict.

clearly fried dough is the way of the light, your salted snacks are a byproduct of your delusions.

I have just eaten your god, I am your new god

I bet your god smells like doritos, dorito breath.

Is it a dogmatic certainty to say that there isn't alien life on Mercury?

God doesnt live on mercury. God is not of the same category of existence as alien life on mercury. god is NOT A THING TO WHICH YOU CAN ASSIGN A DEFINITE ONTOLOGICAL PROPERTY. that is the whole point of the idea of god.

two people arguing over the existence of god is not of the same category of argument which argues over what does or does not exist in the way we normally take the verb "to exist".

the common atheistic response to the proposition "god is not a THING" is to say then that the idea of god is then meaningless. agnostics do not think that this concept of god is meaningless. in fact we think it is productive, and even pragmatically useful, and it's good (better) philosophy and ontology. this may be "negative theology" but nothing is still a something...

i feel like the atheist is forced to DENY CONCLUSIVELY the mere possibility that something may exist outside of his field of vision. does not the possibility itself exist tho? surely it's evident even to an atheist and his certainty that "i could be wrong"--and that mere admission is all I, as an agnostic, am asking for. that little sliver of doubt there is the whole universe of possibility, and when it gets its foot in the door it busts wide open.

Yeah I could be wrong. Still an athiest though.

agnostics do not think that this concept of god is meaningless. in fact we think it is productive, and even pragmatically useful, and it's good (better) philosophy and ontology.

er well I wouldn't go that far.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y176/edwardiii/i_like_gods_style.jpg

Yeah, I could be wrong. Still, LOL at agnostics and theists.

and also: certainty is necessarily authoritarian i fear. beliefs lead to actions, and certain beliefs lead to authoritarian actions...

and admitting uncertainty, the bare possibility of fallibilism, does not mean we can start jumping off buildings to see if we fly, but it's just an admission that our existence and our life in this world is a provisional affair, partially lit up and partially obscured, and we're just feeling our way along.

haha ok fair enough at the "i could wrong posters"--i could be wrong too.

agnosticism really IS a wishy washy bullshitty stance. it's just the only way i know of to conceptualize uncertainty. it only comes into hard focus when paired against atheism, but put between atheism and theism it seems silly.

Listen, can one be a theist and still be a skeptic and a doubter? Yes. Can someone please tell me where this idea comes from that as an atheist I must be sure in all things and never consider the possibility that things exist beyond my understanding?

well it comes from this thread. but i would put myself in that camp--the uncertain atheist.

viewing agnosticism as "on the fence" between atheism and theism is silly anyway!

If no one had ever conceived of god, you would not be an agnostic. However, under the same conditions, while the word "atheist" wouldn't exist in such a universe, an outside observer from a universe wherein theism exists would identify the inhabitants of the atheistic universe as atheists.

Dear thread,

Let me know when we get this pesky "Epistemology" thing solved. THX in advance.

-j.

lol @ this week's This Modern World

Ha, I didn't realize I was trying to solve for X. I'm just saying that atheism is more naturalistic and honest than agnosticism, which only makes sense as a reactionary position towards theism.

If you have no way of knowing whether god exists and if you aren't making a leap of faith, why not just say "I don't believe in god"?

I'm just saying that atheism is more naturalistic and honest than agnosticism, which only makes sense as a reactionary position towards theism.

I've usually heard this the other way around!

If you have no way of knowing whether god exists and if you aren't making a leap of faith, why not just say "I don't believe in god"?

Well I, for one, don't believe in god, but I could be an agnostic or an atheist depending on your definition of either. I ticked "I'm not sure whether or not there is a god" on this thread, but I really don't care that much about which -ism I fall under. You can call me whatever the fuck you want because I think the semantics are stupid in the atheism vs. agnosticism snafu. And I think a lot of agnostics/atheists are this way.

you're right. but i think a lot of god-believers are also actually kind of agnostic, they just fall on the side of practicing the traditions they were raised in.

If no one had ever conceived of god, you would not be an agnostic. However, under the same conditions, while the word "atheist" wouldn't exist in such a universe, an outside observer from a universe wherein theism exists would identify the inhabitants of the atheistic universe as atheists.

Surely that should be 'the universe where no one had ever conceived of God' rather than 'the atheist univers'? Unless the observer from the theist universe was observing a third (and previously unmentioned) universe which was populated by people who strongly disbelieved beliefs which no one in their universe had ever had.

Ha. But we are labeling it as an atheistic universe, because we are making an argument from within a universe in which exists theism and atheism.

as, exists

You know the thing I love about you is that even though you don't believe in God YOU DO BELIEVE IN RAINBOWS!!!!!!

http://www.toyarchive.com/CareBears/PillowRainbowBear1a.jpg

God doesnt live on mercury. God is not of the same category of existence as alien life on mercury. god is NOT A THING TO WHICH YOU CAN ASSIGN A DEFINITE ONTOLOGICAL PROPERTY. that is the whole point of the idea of god.

If you don't like aliens on Mercury, how about banshees? Ghosts? The Loch Ness Monster?

two people arguing over the existence of god is not of the same category of argument which argues over what does or does not exist in the way we normally take the verb "to exist".

But there are roughly as many Shakeys in the US (where most posters to this one hail from) as there are atheists and agnostics. The dominant theology is organized Christianity along with Islam and Judaism.

I don't know about that - polls consistently show that there are a lot more Americans who believe in God than Americans who go to church regularly.

MANY OF YOU ARE V V BAD AT MAKING TEH THINKING PARTS OF YOU GO.

who is humansuit if not rip

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/the_holy_bible_autographed_by_jesus_on_ebay

would definitely buy a manics album that had been autographed by jesus