NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a quick poll, since there's some debate as to what percentage of NSG is atheist or agnostic versus theist.

can we define theist? what about like the mystics we are god and god is everything type? where do they go?

can we define theist? what about like the mystics we are god and god is everything type? where do they go?

I'm thinking theist in the personified deity sort. You've got a god who is a discreet entity.

We atheists should have our own option, mkay? polls can have up to 10 options, not just four.

I'm thinking theist in the personified deity sort. You've got a god who is a discreet entity.

I was really trying to steal the OP so I could screw up the poll......

seriously.










not really

Deeper Lutheranism practicer here.

We atheists should have our own option, mkay? polls can have up to 10 options, not just four.

I could of done that, but it's not really the information I'm after. I don't really care who's an atheist over who's an agnostic. It's not relevant.

Atheist. Of course.

We atheists should have our own option, mkay? polls can have up to 10 options, not just four.

Hell, we could do it with two...

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or LDS. I believe in God the Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. They are three separate and distinct beings who play a role in the Godhead.

Theist! And all you Athiests will burn in hell! No wait I don't belive in hell, shit shit!

Okay and all you atheists will burn your toast! Yeah I belive in toast.

Okay and all you atheists will burn your toast! Yeah I belive in toast.
Their toast won't burn if they don't eat waffles, and worship the Toaster-in-the-Sky.

Atheist. Of course.

The only intellectually honest option.

can we define theist? what about like the mystics we are god and god is everything type? where do they go?

I'm one of those. I voted non-personal god religion, even though I don't follow any organised religion.

My fundamental belief system (on this topic) is agnostic. Atheism is the result of my agnostic beliefs.

You should have used "Deist." Theism implies more of a formalized, theological belief in a religion, whereas deism (mainly embodied by what religious sociologist Dr. Regnerus calls Secular Therapeutic Deism), usually suggests only a sem-personal relationship with (a) God, with only the stipulation that He receives prayers.

Modern religion is a very interesting discipline. I suggest that y'all read Regnerus' book, Forbidden Fruit. (I had him for a class, I'm indoctrinated).

Atheist.

In the event there is a deity or deities in charge of the/this universe, I've a few complaints:

1) ...

You should have used "Deist." Theism implies more of a formalized, theological belief in a religion, whereas deism (mainly embodied by what religious sociologist Dr. Regnerus calls Secular Therapeutic Deism), usually suggests only a sem-personal relationship with (a) God, with only the stipulation that He receives prayers.

Modern religion is a very interesting discipline. I suggest that y'all read Regnerus' book, Forbidden Fruit. (I had him for a class, I'm indoctrinated).

Actually, no.

Theism does not require belief in a religion. It doesn't even require belief in a personal deity. It is simply the belief in a supernatural god or gods revealed to man.

Deism, on the other hand, is actually a somewhat more "reasoned" take. It rejects miracles and the supernatural, and tries to explain god through reason.

Theism is, therefore, the more correct term in this situation.

I could of done that, but it's not really the information I'm after. I don't really care who's an atheist over who's an agnostic. It's not relevant.

since when were NSG polls about being relevant?

You should have used "Deist." Theism implies more of a formalized, theological belief in a religion, whereas deism (mainly embodied by what religious sociologist Dr. Regnerus calls Secular Therapeutic Deism), usually suggests only a sem-personal relationship with (a) God, with only the stipulation that He receives prayers.

Modern religion is a very interesting discipline. I suggest that y'all read Regnerus' book, Forbidden Fruit. (I had him for a class, I'm indoctrinated).

Deism doesn't necessarily stipulate that your chosen god-type entity even receive prayers, it really just requires a belief in a god that created the universe, at least that's my understanding of it. The clockwork god, I think it's called?

Anyway, yea, this poll is lacking in a number of options to be very useful, it seems. What about pantheism, for example? You make Spinoza a sad, sad dead philosopher! :(

I'd classify myself as a deist insomuch that I think it's perfectly reasonable that there is some kind of creative force that begot the universe and cosmos. However, do I believe in an interested deity/deities that people can call pappy and ask to hold their hands? Noop, not at all.

I could of done that, but it's not really the information I'm after. I don't really care who's an atheist over who's an agnostic. It's not relevant.

That does it - I cannot abide this atrocity any longer. Of = a preposition. It does not mean "have". Have is not contracted to "of" - it is contracted to "'ve". "I could of" is wrong. Wrong, wrong, stupidly wrong! "I could've" is right. Right, right, literally right!

So, be a doll, and learn some English. I had to.

The only intellectually honest option.
Yeah, I've never been one for the deep-seated, self-loathing deceit. Perhaps it is all of this self-esteem I have strewn around here.

My fundamental belief system (on this topic) is agnostic. Atheism is the result of my agnostic beliefs.

I'm with pullo here.

Yeah, I've never been one for the deep-seated, self-loathing deceit. Perhaps it is all of this self-esteem I have strewn around here.

Many do fall for the false bliss inherent in lying to themselves that they're special, little creatures in some benevolent pixie's grand scheme. They're weak that way.

That does it - I cannot abide atrocity this any longer. Of = a preposition. It does not mean "have". Have is not contracted to "of" - it is contracted to "'ve". "I could of" is wrong. Wrong, wrong, stupidly wrong! "I could've" is right. Right, right, literally right!

So, be a doll, and learn some English. I had to.

uh....Fass?

Recently a college type person told me I should not use the word "that" in my writing because most people use it improperly. I have looked and looked for the official "that" rule and have come up empty.

do you happen to know it?

Theologically noncognitivist (ignostic); used as an argument for strong Atheism. Ergo, my philosophy is theologically noncognitivant, but I'm a strong Atheist.

That does it - I cannot abide atrocity this any longer. Of = a preposition. It does not mean "have". Have is not contracted to "of" - it is contracted to "'ve". "I could of" is wrong. Wrong, wrong, stupidly wrong! "I could've" is right. Right, right, literally right!

So, be a doll, and learn some English. I had to.
Is it just because it sounds virtually the same when spoken, or a deeper error of grammar or forethought?

I cannot think of a way one could intentionally use the word 'of' like that. Perhaps it is just a funny instance of somebody writing phonetically.

uh....Fass?

Recently a college type person told me I should not use the word "that" in my writing because most people use it improperly. I have looked and looked for the official "that" rule and have come up empty.

do you happen to know it?

I assume you mean "that" when used as a pronoun. I'll steal from MW:

"usage That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive."

"usage That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. That was formerly used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; such use is virtually nonexistent in present-day edited prose, though it may occasionally be found in poetry."

uh....Fass?

Recently a college type person told me I should not use the word "that" in my writing because most people use it improperly. I have looked and looked for the official "that" rule and have come up empty.

do you happen to know it?

Some use "that" where "which" is more appropriate. For example:

"The statue that was in the drawing room." = Correct usage of "that," provided there are no other statues in the room.

"The statue, which was in the drawing room." = Correct usage of "which." It would be incorrect to use this if there were more than one statue in the drawing room.

See http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaThat_Versus_Which.htm

EDIT: Personally I use them almost interchangably. This is a pretty archaic rule.

All/none.

I assume you mean "that" when used as a pronoun. I'll steal from MW:

"usage That, which, who: In current usage that refers to persons or things, which chiefly to things and rarely to subhuman entities, who chiefly to persons and sometimes to animals. The notion that that should not be used to refer to persons is without foundation; such use is entirely standard. Because that has no genitive form or construction, of which or whose must be substituted for it in contexts that call for the genitive."

"usage That, which: Although some handbooks say otherwise, that and which are both regularly used to introduce restrictive clauses in edited prose. Which is also used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses. That was formerly used to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; such use is virtually nonexistent in present-day edited prose, though it may occasionally be found in poetry."
:D thanks!

Many do fall for the false bliss inherent in lying to themselves that they're special, little creatures in some benevolent pixie's grand scheme. They're weak that way.
More than that, there lies the inherent disdain for the self in consciously pulling the wool over one's own eyes. Prior to such idiocy one must first acknowledge that no matter how solid the powers of reason of one's mind, they must be inherently broken as compared to the falsely recited musings of an iron age derelict.

Combine this with the near-dependence on some kind of father-replacement omni-god, and you have a socially endemic inferiority complex.

That does it - I cannot abide this atrocity any longer. Of = a preposition. It does not mean "have". Have is not contracted to "of" - it is contracted to "'ve". "I could of" is wrong. Wrong, wrong, stupidly wrong! "I could've" is right. Right, right, literally right!

So, be a doll, and learn some English. I had to.

http://nastyhobbit.files.wordpress.com/2005/10/grammartime.gif

Is it just because it sounds virtually the same when spoken, or a deeper error of grammar or forethought?

It doesn't sound virtually the same. They are distinctly different. In "of" the "o" is clearly audible in most, if not all cases and it is pronounced "ov", while "'ve" is just pronounced "v" with an almost inaudible "e" used to avoid a consonant collision if it is preceded by a consonant. "I kood ov" and "I kood ev" sound quite different to my ears.

It doesn't sound virtually the same. They are distinctly different. In "of" the "o" is clearly audible in most, if not all cases and is pronounced "ov", while "'ve" is just pronounced "v" with an almost inaudible "e" is used to avoid a consonant collision if it is preceded by a consonant. "I kood of" and "I kood ev" sound quite different to my ears.

IIRC you have an interest in linguistics. To the lay person's ear, with no knowledge of phonetic construction or proper pronounciation of vowels, it may sound identical.

Many do fall for the false bliss inherent in lying to themselves that they're special, little creatures in some benevolent pixie's grand scheme. They're weak that way.

Arrogant, annoying, weak men?

Hard to believe!

It doesn't sound virtually the same. They are distinctly different. In "of" the "o" is clearly audible in most, if not all cases and is pronounced "ov", while "'ve" is just pronounced "v" with an almost inaudible "e" is used to avoid a consonant collision if it is preceded by a consonant. "I kood of" and "I kood ev" sound quite different to my ears. I speak Australian english here. As far as I am aware, we are notorious for our incessant gliding, meaning the difference here is 'kood-v' and 'kood-hv' (with the slightest hint of an 'h' leading in the 'v').

Arrogant, annoying, weak men?

Hard to believe! Isn't it just, the way these religious fools cont-

Wait, what!? *clutches chest* Argh the sheer brilliance of you diabolical sarcasm has besmoted me to the floor. Poignant, ironic, witty. Your pen is my executioner's axe.

Why did you make Atheist/Agnostic one option? Completely fucks up the poll and I'm guessing you did it to make it look like there's lots more atheists.

"The statue that was in the drawing room." = Correct usage of "that," provided there are no other statues in the room.

"The statue, which was in the drawing room." = Correct usage of "which." It would be incorrect to use this if there were more than one statue in the drawing room.
Or more than one room.

--snip--
Combine this with the near-dependence on some kind of father-replacement omni-god, and you have a socially endemic inferiority complex.

It all does seem to go to some paradoxical idea of hubris (or more precisely a jante law if I may use a Nordic reference): "Don't think you are someone, human! Fear God!", but at the same time the hubris is hypocritically expressed in this "I am a special, created, cared for creature with a hugely cocked, magical daddy" nonsense.

Why did you make Atheist/Agnostic one option? Completely fucks up the poll and I'm guessing you did it to make it look like there's lots more atheists.

The OP already explained that the point was to discern those whole held faith from those who did not. He didn't care for the distinction between those that have no faith and those that reject it.

Though you are probably right; the crushing dominance of reason is probably just a systemic glitch.

Atheist. Believe everything comes from random probobility.

IIRC you have an interest in linguistics. To the lay person's ear, with no knowledge of phonetic construction or proper pronounciation of vowels, it may sound identical.

Pronunciation. The thing is, I had to learn English as a second language. The irony is that it has meant I know it better than I care for. It really is a hideous language.

Though you are probably right; the crushing dominance of reason is probably just a systemic glitch.

Speak about your own surroundings. The poll is quite consistent with mine. :p

The OP already explained that the point was to discern those whole held faith from those who did not. He didn't care for the distinction between those that have no faith and those that reject it.
That's a bit simplistic. My agnosticism is not based on apathy, or on indecisiveness. I believe in an inherent unknowability, which is itself a position of faith, in a way (though it is not in any way something that is beyond challenge).

It all does seem to go to some paradoxical idea of hubris (or more precisely a jante law if I may use a Nordic reference): "Don't think you are someone, human! Fear God!", but at the same time the hubris is hypocritically expressed in this "I am a special, created, cared for creature with a hugely cocked, magical daddy" nonsense. You'd think it was written by shakespeare, being so riddled with antithesis (dramatic). My personal favourite is "What position are you in to judge <category x>? Now watch as I judge you!"

You'd think it was written by shakespeare, being so riddled with antithesis (dramatic). My personal favourite is "What position are you in to judge <category x>? Now watch as I judge you!"

My favourite is: "What has my religion done to you, faggot? You're so mean!"

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that athiest and agnostic are lumped together in the poll? Athiesm and agnosticism are similar in that neither has a clear deity, but they differ greatly in essentially every other way.

Pronunciation. The thing is, I had to learn English as a second language. The irony is that it has meant I know it better than I care for. It really is a hideous language.
Proficient ESL students always hold a better understanding of the grammatical constructs of this magnificent mess of a language. Though rarely a better command, mind you.

Pronunciation. The thing is, I had to learn English as a second language. The irony is that it has meant I know it better than I care for. It really is a hideous language.
Hideous, undoubtedly, but also incredibly flexible. The rules of the English language bend and twist like a contortionist, and while it might not be aesthetically pleasing, it can express ideas easily in ways that other languages have to bend over backwards to accommodate.

Atheist. Believe everything comes from random probobility.

I bet you just said that randomly.

I bet you just said that randomly.
Which, given that he is arguing from a position of total randomness, is actually not very random at all.

That's a bit simplistic. My agnosticism is not based on apathy, or on indecisiveness. I believe in an inherent unknowability, which is itself a position of faith, in a way (though it is not in any way something that is beyond challenge). Yes, but such a position posits no faith in a higher power, being the point of focus.

If I may go on, your 'faith' in the inherent unknowability of things as a formalised stance is a waste of time. If I may borrow from the classics; it is inherently unknowable as to whether or not there are indeed many things in existence, be they flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or orbiting teacups. However, it is derisive to your own intellect and decisiveness to form a null-position on such things. Unless you wish to be self-righteous on your point on the inherent unknowability of things.

Proficient ESL students always hold a better understanding of the grammatical constructs of this magnificent mess of a language. Though rarely a better command, mind you.

Believe me, if it were in any way possible for me to release my reigns on this wretchedness, I would have done so a long time ago and been perfectly happy to confound stupid Anglophone tourists with my audacious impudence in not being able to converse with them in the only tongue they themselves have barely bothered to learn. Unfortunately the Swedish scholastic system and my obsession with high marks and pedantry foiled me, as they have most of my life.

My favourite is: "What has my religion done to you, faggot? You're so mean!"

*stones the cruel infidel to death*

Agnostic, leaning towards Paganism.

Hideous, undoubtedly, but also incredibly flexible. The rules of the English language bend and twist like a contortionist, and while it might not be aesthetically pleasing, it can express ideas easily in ways that other languages have to bend over backwards to accommodate.

Depends on the language you're comparing it to. If one compares with the other, proper Germanic languages, its flexibility - oh, so touted by mostly monoglot Anglophones - is beaten by kilometres. Swedish being one of the proper Germanic languages, English has thus never impressed me much in any respect. It can do the job, but it doesn't excel.

Believe me, if it were in any way possible for me to release my reigns on this wretchedness, I would have done so a long time ago and been perfectly happy to confound stupid Anglophone tourists with my audacious impudence in not being able to converse with them in the only tongue they themselves have barely bothered to learn. Unfortunately the Swedish scholastic system and my obsession with high marks and pedantry foiled me, as they have most of my life. Surely you find the equivocal potential of English comforting as a fellow pedant? Plus, there is no harm in simply feigning ignorance when it comes to insufferables.

Believe me, if it were in any way possible for me to release my reigns on this wretchedness, I would have done so a long time ago and been perfectly happy to confound stupid Anglophone tourists with my audacious impudence in not being able to converse with them in the only tongue they themselves have barely bothered to learn. Unfortunately the Swedish scholastic system and my obsession with high marks and pedantry foiled me, as they have most of my life. Surely you find the equivocal potential of English comforting as a fellow pedant? Plus, there is no harm in simply feigning ignorance when it comes to insufferables. To be honest, even I do it (being english first language- all it takes is an accent and a confused look).

I guess I'm agnostic, but really I decided that I really don't care if God exists or not. I mean really, it doesn't make much of a differance to me. If he doesn't exist: cool I can just take an eternal nap at the end of my life, if he does, cool: I can ask him a bunch of questions. Worrying about it is pointless because you will never know the truth until you're dead.

I am a theist.

Yes, but such a position posits no faith in a higher power, being the point of focus.

If I may go on, your 'faith' in the inherent unknowability of things as a formalised stance is a waste of time. If I may borrow from the classics; it is inherently unknowable as to whether or not there are indeed many things in existence, be they flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or orbiting teacups. However, it is derisive to your own intellect and decisiveness to form a null-position on such things. Unless you wish to be self-righteous on your point on the inherent unknowability of things.
You may indeed go on, and, as always, I appreciate the challenge. It's not fair, however, to suggest that if I wish to disagree with an assertion that a specific view is derisive then I will be acting in a self-righteous manner. It is not self-righteousness to speak one's mind, after all.

In any case, I'll bite the bullet. I speak from a position of one who, in having asserted that things are unknowable, nonetheless chooses to construct a conceptual framework of his own as a matter of convenience, acknowledging that such a system is not reality in and of itself and can only have definitive truth within its own context. As mathematics, so too is the construction of our own world an enclosed system that we may, as a result of information subjectively received, change as we see fit without ever making assertions about how closely it maps to reality.

Are there really flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or orbiting teacups? I don't, and can't, know, derisive to my intellect this stance may be. All I know is it's not necessarily useful for me to factor their existence into my behaviour. They do not factor in to the model I construct to interface with what I perceive to be my surroundings, which you might (perhaps accurately) argue to be perfectly analogous to disbelief, but this is no assertion of their truth or falsehood.

Yes, but such a position posits no faith in a higher power, being the point of focus.

If I may go on, your 'faith' in the inherent unknowability of things as a formalised stance is a waste of time. If I may borrow from the classics; it is inherently unknowable as to whether or not there are indeed many things in existence, be they flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or orbiting teacups. However, it is derisive to your own intellect and decisiveness to form a null-position on such things. Unless you wish to be self-righteous on your point on the inherent unknowability of things.
It's not faith in things that are unknowable; it's faith in the unknowable in all things. That can be interpreted as a "higher" being or existence.

Depends on the language you're comparing it to. If one compares with the other, proper Germanic languages, its flexibility - oh, so touted by mostly monoglot Anglophones - is beaten by kilometres. Swedish being one of the proper Germanic languages, English has thus never impressed me much in any respect. It can do the job, but it doesn't excel.More Anglophobic drivel from you as usual.

In regards to the topic.. I think couple of weeks after this thread has fizzled out I'm gonna have to make a proper poll as this one is all messed up with the dual-answer poll option.

More Anglophobic drivel from you as usual.

In regards to the topic.. I think couple of weeks after this thread has fizzled out I'm gonna have to make a proper poll as this one is all messed up with the dual-answer poll option.

Please, don't. Just don't. Is it really necessary? If any of the self-identified agnostics were theists, they would probably have voted as such.

You may indeed go on, and, as always, I appreciate the challenge. It's not fair, however, to suggest that if I wish to disagree with an assertion that a specific view is derisive then I will be acting in a self-righteous manner. It is not self-righteousness to speak one's mind, after all.

In any case, I'll bite the bullet. I speak from a position of one who, in having asserted that things are unknowable, nonetheless chooses to construct a conceptual framework of his own as a matter of convenience, acknowledging that such a system is not reality in and of itself and can only have definitive truth within its own context. As mathematics, so too is the construction of our own world an enclosed system that we may, as a result of information subjectively received, change as we see fit without ever making assertions about how closely it maps to reality.

Are there really flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink unicorns, or orbiting teacups? I don't, and can't, know, derisive to my intellect this stance may be. All I know is it's not necessarily useful for me to factor their existence into my behaviour. They do not factor in to the model I construct to interface with what I perceive to be my surroundings, which you might (perhaps accurately) argue to be perfectly analogous to disbelief, but this is no assertion of their truth or falsehood. I italicised the important bit. disbelief is somewhat irrelevant. The difference between atheism and agnosticism simply put it the difference between entertaining ridiculous possibilities, and assuming them to be false (for lack of evidence, among other things). It does not require a concerted belief in the falsehood of these things, so much as a rejection of the plausibility. Obviously, with such a limited perception of a potentially infinte universe, all things are possible, and perhaps certain. Nevertheless, there is a line of practicality (in regard to the model with which we interface with what we perceive to be reality) that must be drawn, lest we simply stall all interaction on an infinite number of technically possible tangents. The reason I call it self-righteous (or bring the possibility forward) is that most often such philosophical timewasting is in fact not accidental. Especially when it comes to intelligent people like oneself.

It's not faith in things that are unknowable; it's faith in the unknowable in all things. That can be interpreted as a "higher" being or existence.

Clever equivocation (really, no facetiousness), however that is not what he said or explained. Furthermore, such a position would not equate to agnosticism anyhow.

Please, don't. Just don't. Is it really necessary? If any of the self-identified agnostics were theists, they would probably have voted as such.

Precisely.

Why did you make Atheist/Agnostic one option? Completely fucks up the poll and I'm guessing you did it to make it look like there's lots more atheists.

The purpose of the poll is to find out how many people here believe in god and how many don't. Making them separate options would be stupid.

More than that, there lies the inherent disdain for the self in consciously pulling the wool over one's own eyes. Prior to such idiocy one must first acknowledge that no matter how solid the powers of reason of one's mind, they must be inherently broken as compared to the falsely recited musings of an iron age derelict.

Combine this with the near-dependence on some kind of father-replacement omni-god, and you have a socially endemic inferiority complex.

Quick question: do you think that people who come to theism through personal revelation, rather than historical tradition, also have this idiocy and self-loathing?

Just curious why are the vast majority of atheists I have the pleasure of listening to completely incapable of distinguishing between organised religion and simply believing in a god?


You ask an atheist to explain why he doesn't believe in god and he will spend 95% of his time ranting on about Christianity. You know it's true. What if people acknowledge organised religion is a load of crap yet still believe in a creator/god?

The purpose of the poll is to find out how many people here believe in god and how many don't. Making them separate options would be stupid.
Agnostic means you don't know.

Clever equivocation (really, no facetiousness), however that is not what he said or explained. Furthermore, such a position would not equate to agnosticism anyhow.

For it to be equivocation, I would have to have equated them, rather than distinguished them.

It's my agnosticism.

Just curious why are the vast majority of atheists I have the pleasure of listening to completely incapable of distinguishing between organised religion and simply believing in a god?


You ask an atheist to explain why he doesn't believe in god and he will spend 95% of his time ranting on about Christianity. You know it's true. What if people acknowledge organised religion is a load of crap yet still believe in a creator/god?


Agnostic means you don't know.

Yes and if you don't know you can't believe in it now can you? Go bother someone else.

Agnostic means you don't know.

It's really a very simple question. Simpler than this poll, even. Do you believe in a god? Yes....or no? What are you saying, you don't know your head? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism)
Of course, there's those that hate to admit to 'no' so I might disguise it as 'other'

Yes and if you don't know you can't believe in it now can you? Go bother someone else.
That's not the point..

People are curious as to how many atheists are on this forum.

That's not the point..

People are curious as to how many atheists are on this forum.

And?

Quick question: do you think that people who come to theism through personal revelation, rather than historical tradition, also have this idiocy and self-loathing? Good question. I would say yes. The only reason someone would hold faith in any religion (especially these days) is because they want to. That is, they seek to satisfy some subjectively defined id at the expense of their intellectual integrity (a small price for some).

And?
I put a full stop at the end of my sentence, that means I'd finished what I was saying.

I put a full stop at the end of my sentence, that means I'd finished what I was saying.

...Well, yeah, okay, I guess if you're just going to make random statements of fact I don't have a problem, continue then.

Just curious why are the vast majority of atheists I have the pleasure of listening to completely incapable of distinguishing between organised religion and simply believing in a god?


You ask an atheist to explain why he doesn't believe in god and he will spend 95% of his time ranting on about Christianity. You know it's true. What if people acknowledge organised religion is a load of crap yet still believe in a creator/god? There are a few reasons for this. Christianity is the most commonly encountered foil for the atheist, thus many of his arguments are fashioned around this. Furthermore, it is easier and more fun to disprove an organised religion than it is to disprove broader concepts of divinity. Finally, disproving a broader concept of divinity is relevant to few, rather dry, and most often the first thing covered.

...Well, yeah, okay, I guess if you're just going to make random statements of fact I don't have a problem, continue then.
It wasn't a random statement.. I was responding to someone's point....

That's not the point..

People are curious as to how many atheists are on this forum.

Do I strike you as the sort of person who really cares what others are curious about? A vast majority of people are too stupid for me to concern myself with. The impetus for this poll was here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12991558&postcount=83). It's an interesting question and one that I myself wondered about, thus the poll. If you do not like it, make your own, don't participate, or jump off a bridge. I honestly don't care which of the three you pick.

Good question. I would say yes. The only reason someone would hold faith in any religion (especially these days) is because they want to. That is, they seek to satisfy some subjectively defined id at the expense of their intellectual integrity (a small price for some).

People who have had personal revelations do not necessarily follow, or have faith in, any religion. Do people like this also sacrifice their intellectual integrity?

It wasn't a random statement.. I was responding to someone's point....

Not really. You first dismissed someone's point by saying...well, "that's not the point". The second sentence was just whatever popped into your head, I guess.

Do I strike you as the sort of person who really cares what others are curious about? A vast majority of people are too stupid for me to concern myself with. The impetus for this poll was here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12991558&postcount=83). It's an interesting question and one that I myself wondered about, thus the poll. If you do not like it, make your own, don't participate, or jump off a bridge. I honestly don't care which of the three you pick.
:D

Atheist arrogance and attitude dwarfs the kind of crap you get from most religious preachers.

:D

Atheist arrogance and attitude dwarfs the kind of crap you get from most religious preachers.

Arrogance has nothing to do with atheism. It has everything do with being surrounded by intellectual inferiors.

:D

Atheist arrogance and attitude dwarfs the kind of crap you get from most religious preachers.
Oh my, I have an attitude. An attitude which compares to hatemongering, at that.

Arrogance has nothing to do with atheism. It has everything do with being surrounded by intellectual inferiors.
Basically anyone who doesn't believe what you believe aye?

Basically anyone who doesn't believe what you believe aye?

Yes, that's it exactly, you've figured me out! You and your finely tuned perception have ferreted out the truth! Anyone who doesn't believe exactly what I believe is an idiot and beneath me!

:rolleyes:

Basically anyone who doesn't believe what you believe aye?
No, your thinking in the religious way. Atheists define intellectual inferiors as those who lack the capacity for reason and complex thought (on a relative scale, of course).

GreaterPacificNations,

You may have overlooked my follow up question. Could you answer this for me:

People who have had personal revelations do not necessarily follow, or have faith in, any religion. Do people like this also sacrifice their intellectual integrity?

I ask this in response to this post:

Good question. I would say yes. The only reason someone would hold faith in any religion (especially these days) is because they want to. That is, they seek to satisfy some subjectively defined id at the expense of their intellectual integrity (a small price for some).

I object to the fact that Atheist and Agnostic are the same option.

I second this objection.

Yes yes, we all know you're an objectionable sort.

I object to the fact that Atheist and Agnostic are the same option.
I second this objection.

Theist! And all you Athiests will burn in hell! No wait I don't belive in hell, shit shit!

Okay and all you atheists will burn your toast! Yeah I belive in toast.

Toast is a delusion, created by weak-minded people who desperately want to think that their heating of bread has some kind of purpose or meaning.

*nods*

Toast is a delusion, created by weak-minded people who desperately want to think that their heating of bread has some kind of purpose or meaning.

*nods*

Toast help those poor souls that died in the great Toast/French Toast wars.

I second this objection.

Yes, yes, we heard.

Atheist, but used to be Agnostic, before then used to be Mormon.

GreaterPacificNations,

You may have overlooked my follow up question. Could you answer this for me:

People who have had personal revelations do not necessarily follow, or have faith in, any religion. Do people like this also sacrifice their intellectual integrity?

I ask this in response to this post:
Ugh. Allow me to rephrase:
"Good question. I would say yes. The only reason someone would hold faith in any supernatural belief (especially these days) is because they want to. That is, they seek to satisfy some subjectively defined id at the expense of their intellectual integrity (a small price for some)."

The point still stands.

I object to the fact that Atheist and Agnostic are the same option.

Don't you all?

More Anglophobic drivel from you as usual.

And, who are you again, noobie? Whose puppet?

And it ain't phobic, it's true. English is horrid.

Or maybe they believe it because they think it's logical etc?


Why do you have to be so grotesquely self-righteous?


So is that ugly mess known as Swedish.

While I appreciate the silly attempts to keep this post at the top purely for the information it'll gather I'm fair sure you don't wanna go down this road.

Ugh. Allow me to rephrase:
"Good question. I would say yes. The only reason someone would hold faith in any supernatural belief (especially these days) is because they want to. That is, they seek to satisfy some subjectively defined id at the expense of their intellectual integrity (a small price for some)."

The point still stands.
Or maybe they believe it because they think it's logical etc?


Why do you have to be so grotesquely self-righteous?


And it ain't phobic, it's true. English is horrid.
So is that ugly mess known as Swedish.

Or maybe they believe it because they think it's logical etc? They probably think they do, but they don't know shit about why they do anything. This is especially true given that logic is the simplest platform upon which to dash the notion of a god.


Why do you have to be so grotesquely self-righteous? Oh you poor thing.. define 'self-righteous' for me, and apply it to that post.


So is that ugly mess known as Swedish.You speak swedish too?

So is that ugly mess known as Swedish.

Titt', grabben törs låtsas snacka't; mycken blaj, som om han haft en aning. But, are you honestly under the impression I would get as wounded over that as you? Honey, you need to get a grip. So, your language is horrid. Shake that sand out of your vagina, and stop taking it personally, because it's just pathetic.

Ugh. Allow me to rephrase:
"Good question. I would say yes. The only reason someone would hold faith in any supernatural belief (especially these days) is because they want to. That is, they seek to satisfy some subjectively defined id at the expense of their intellectual integrity (a small price for some)."

The point still stands.

So, if somebody had a vision of god, and decided to believe what their own senses are telling them, they are being intellectually dishonest in order to satisy some subjectively defined id?

I'm curious as to your logic. What is the relationship between witnessing a supernatural event and self-deprecating idiocy?

I italicised the important bit. disbelief is somewhat irrelevant. The difference between atheism and agnosticism simply put is the difference between entertaining ridiculous possibilities, and assuming them to be false (for lack of evidence, among other things). It does not require a concerted belief in the falsehood of these things, so much as a rejection of the plausibility. Obviously, with such a limited perception of a potentially infinte universe, all things are possible, and perhaps certain. Nevertheless, there is a line of practicality (in regard to the model with which we interface with what we perceive to be reality) that must be drawn, lest we simply stall all interaction on an infinite number of technically possible tangents.
Italics don't show up in quoted texts when you've included the original poster details in the [ QUOTE] tag, so I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to, but I'll respond nonetheless!

The entertainment of ridiculous possibilities is not, in and of itself, an opponent to practicality. Indeed, when dealing with people to whom said possibilities are pivotal to their own model of the world, the ability to establish protocol marks the difference between communing with them and ostracizing them. At least, so I have found to be the case thus far.

Intellectually, I agree, it is possible to wind ourselves into an infinite loop if we seek to somehow build the entire of plausibility into how we view the world. However, that does not provide adequate justification for the elimination of all that seems implausible in our consideration of how to interact with the world around us. It is precisely on practical grounds that, in the absence of any explicit truth on the matter, I think it is worthwhile to at least be able to establish subsidiary models for reality on the basis of what others use without finding need to reject them due to their apparent implausibility.

That does not mean we should merely conform to whatever others believe. Indeed, since we cannot know about most of what we understand to be objectivity (except in as much as it overlaps with that which is subjective), I think it generally sound to challenge any claim to singular truth that they may make. However, when it comes to that which is an appeal to the subjective of others, it is of practical value to use their own understandings as a way to engage with them rather than rejecting such understandings as false.

It's really a very simple question. Simpler than this poll, even. Do you believe in a god? Yes....or no?
Is the notion of a conceptual god (the god that is brought into existence as a result of people thinking about it) sufficient to declare one's self Theist? That is the extent to which I can affirm its existence, but it is one of the few affirmations that I can actually concretely hold to be indubitably true, since it is an entity with which I have knowledge through direct acquaintance.

Is the notion of a conceptual god (the god that is brought into existence as a result of people thinking about it) sufficient to declare one's self Theist?

Hmm, if you believe it in that sense, then yes, feel free.

So, if somebody had a vision of god, and decided to believe what their own senses are telling them, they are being intellectually dishonest in order to satisy some subjectively defined id? Yes, because a vision is hardly substantial evidence of anything, let alone something as complex in detail as a 'god'. How can you 'see' omnipotence?

I'm curious as to your logic. What is the relationship between witnessing a supernatural event and self-deprecating idiocy? If you witness an event, it isn't supernatural. By it's very existence, it must be natural.

Yes, because a vision is hardly substantial evidence of anything, let alone something as complex in detail as a 'god'. How can you 'see' omnipotence?

Says who? Personal experience is about the most believable evidence I have available...I'm a lot more likely to believe something I see or experience than anything else.

And you make the assumption that God is omnipotent...

Italics don't show up in quoted texts when you've included the original poster details in the [ QUOTE] tag, so I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to, but I'll respond nonetheless! Didn't think that one through..

The entertainment of ridiculous possibilities is not, in and of itself, an opponent to practicality. Indeed, when dealing with people to whom said possibilities are pivotal to their own model of the world, the ability to establish protocol marks the difference between communing with them and ostracizing them. At least, so I have found to be the case thus far. Certainly, but it is often socially practical to feign belief in many things. This does not demand a genuine philosophical commitment to said positions whatsoever.

Intellectually, I agree, it is possible to wind ourselves into an infinite loop if we seek to somehow build the entire of plausibility into how we view the world. However, that does not provide adequate justification for the elimination of all that seems implausible in our consideration of how to interact with the world around us. It is precisely on practical grounds that, in the absence of any explicit truth on the matter, I think it is worthwhile to at least be able to establish subsidiary models for reality on the basis of what others use without finding need to reject them due to their apparent implausibility. Apparently you have more faith in the common man than I. I don't consider 'everyone else does it' a genuine reason to evaluate something by.

That does not mean we should merely conform to whatever others believe. Indeed, since we cannot know about most of what we understand to be objectivity (except in as much as it overlaps with that which is subjective), I think it generally sound to challenge any claim to singular truth that they may make. However, when it comes to that which is an appeal to the subjective of others, it is of practical value to use their own understandings as a way to engage with them rather than rejecting such understandings as false. Again, this does not require an introspective commitment to agnosticism, so much as a aesthetic one for the purpose of more conducive discourse.

Yes, because a vision is hardly substantial evidence of anything, let alone something as complex in detail as a 'god'. How can you 'see' omnipotence?

If you witness an event, it isn't supernatural. By it's very existence, it must be natural.

While it is not evidence enough to convinve someone else, it is evidence enough for the person who witnessed it. Consequently they are not being intellectually dishonest with themselves.

And you are making assumptions when you define god as something complex or omnipotent. Since you have never had a vision, you can not say that god would appear as complicated or omnipotent.

And the supernatural/natural point has nothing to do with my question. I am asking about the intellectual integrity of a specific type of theist, not your definitions of natural and supernatural.

Can't people just be SPIRITUAL without having to be a Religion? Catholics scare the crap outta me... its like some large form of government to scare people into being mindless drones.

Why the Crusades and Holy wars anyway?

Dont people in different countrys have different words for different things? LIke hello? Aloha, Bonjour, Guten Tag, Hi, Buenos Dias etc... and different words for intangible things like feelings... so why is it suddenly BAD to have different words for a GOD or Entity that you have faith in? Whether you refer to GOD as Allah, Jehova, Yahweh, Gia, Buddah, Tao its all the same essence. Its all the same entity of love, light and goodness. Why fight over it? Why not chalk that up to a cultural difference in language too?

I dont get it... I really dont...

Can't people just be SPIRITUAL without having to be a Religion?

I am. Actually, I'm a pagan of sorts and I don't follow any kind of organized credo or religion.

(I'm not an adherent to Wicca).

I am. Actually, I'm a pagan of sorts and I don't follow any kind of organized credo or religion.

(I'm not an adherent to Wicca).


Excellent -
what Region are you from... Im moving near you !!

As we have at least 3 Cognitive Nontheists on NSG, we now deserve our own poll option. :p

Nevertheless, I do like Poland, and I suppose that qualifies as liking poles, right?

As we have at least 3 Cognitive Nontheists on NSG, we now deserve our own poll option. :p

Nevertheless, I do like Poland, and I suppose that qualifies as liking poles, right?

Cogga-who?

They probably think they do, but they don't know shit about why they do anything. This is especially true given that logic is the simplest platform upon which to dash the notion of a god.
I'm sorry.. you think it's logical to believe the universe popped out of nowhere and everything on this earth is here for no reason? ROFL : D Atheism is up there with Noah and his Ark in terms of illogical thinking.


Oh you poor thing.. define 'self-righteous' for me, and apply it to that post. There's no hope for you if you don't know how you was being self-righteous.


You speak swedish too?
No, why would I speak that shit unimportant language? Doesn't mean I haven't seen it and heard it though.

Can't people just be SPIRITUAL without having to be a Religion? Catholics scare the crap outta me... its like some large form of government to scare people into being mindless drones.

Why the Crusades and Holy wars anyway?

Dont people in different countrys have different words for different things? LIke hello? Aloha, Bonjour, Guten Tag, Hi, Buenos Dias etc... and different words for intangible things like feelings... so why is it suddenly BAD to have different words for a GOD or Entity that you have faith in? Whether you refer to GOD as Allah, Jehova, Yahweh, Gia, Buddah, Tao its all the same essence. Its all the same entity of love, light and goodness. Why fight over it? Why not chalk that up to a cultural difference in language too?

I dont get it... I really dont...

Religion, like language, acts as a social unifier: a way of separating Us from Them. This is irrespective of any spiritual value it may have, just as the socially unifying properties of language have nothing to do with communicating effectively.

In other words, people can still use religion to make other people act in unison, even if people aren't individually spiritual. We see the same principle used for good when churches organise fund drives for charities.

As we have at least 3 Cognitive Nontheists on NSG, we now deserve our own poll option. :p

Nevertheless, I do like Poland, and I suppose that qualifies as liking poles, right?

Before I had a vision, I would probably have been a cognitive non-theist, but since then I find the whole philosophy reductionist. I like the elegance of the logic, though.

Poles as in Polish people... or poles as in .. the dancing type....

I'm sorry.. you think it's logical to believe the universe popped out of nowhere and everything on this earth is here for no reason? ROFL : D Atheism is up there with Noah and his Ark in terms of illogical thinking.

Seeing as many natural processes happen with no real 'purpose', it is quite logical to assume everything follows the same lack of purpose.

Cogga-who?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic

Oh. Meh. You guys were just trying to make it sound fancy.

Oh. Meh. You guys were just trying to make it sound fancy.

What were you expecting, a Philosophy of "I don't think, therefore God is not?"

What were you expecting, a Philosophy of "I don't think, therefore God is not?"

uhh...kinda. >_>"

Is that kinda like dyslexic agnotstic dont believe in Dogs?

uhh...kinda. >_>"

I beleive that would qualify as theological confusism. :P

Is that kinda like dyslexic agnotstic dont believe in Dogs?

As a Dysleixc and former Agnostic, I can assure you that I was quite content in my belief in dogs. I was worried that maybe Alien overlord Sogd was out there, though.

Its ok
I have enough Tinfoil hats to go around....;)

What were you expecting, a Philosophy of "I don't think, therefore God is not?"

That does kind of fit the wikipedia description for ignosticism: "If I can't define it, it's meaningless."

That does kind of fit the wikipedia description for ignosticism: "If I can't define it, it's meaningless."

Well, in a sense. Nevertheless, the statement "I don't think, therefore there is no God" makes a prediction regarding God's existence. Ignostics make no such predictions, they merely reject the question as meaningless.

I'm a scientific theist. More specifically, I'm a practicing ELCA Lutheran who believes the universe is 14 billion or so years old. I also believe in the theory of evolution. I know that sounds like I'm straddling the fence, but I'm comfortable with it.

Good question. I would say yes. The only reason someone would hold faith in any religion (especially these days) is because they want to. That is, they seek to satisfy some subjectively defined id at the expense of their intellectual integrity (a small price for some).

Really? Belief in a religion inhibits intellectual progress? That's quite a statement. Do you have facts to back that up? Just asking, ya know...