I put a 4. I like to think of myself as a positive agnostic (that there will never be a way to know for sure), but I definitely lean more towards the godless end of things.
I don't believe in god. At all. Thor, Zeus, the Christian god, etc - none of it. However, I loathe that book the god delusion. Fundie atheists are just as awful as fundie religious folks.
I voted for #1. I am 100% positive there is some form of a god, and I hope to carry that belief on for the rest of my life.
I chose 6. A good hypothesis states that a lack of evidence is never evidence against something. It's just no evidence. So, until someone can -disprove- god rather than disprove belief/faith/myth/scripture, I can only rationally say that evidence suggests there being no god. Should solid fact prove otherwise, I'm open to looking at it. But solid fact =/= testimony, scripture, or mysticism.
3. Although I have no solid proof of god(s)/goddess(es), it seem that certain things in life are inexplainable and extremely complicated for humans to understand, one of them being the existence of a higher power. We may never know complex questions like how the universe began or silly questions like why do we have 2 legs and arms instead of 5. Because of that, I don't think someone can honestly say 100% that a higher power does/doesn't exist. Stories and testimonials only go so far and just because there's no physical proof of something doesn't mean it's non-existent. Maybe it's because of my loose Christian upbringing that I still feel that there's someone/some beings watching over us and controlling our lives. Plus, things like the human body and certain events throughout nature and history seem so complicated and strategic that it seems to be more than a coincedence or a random assortment of things.
i think something people should think of when filling this out is that god does not have to be identified with organized religion. God can be whatever you name it. Me personally like to think of it as everything in the universe, every relationship, everything. It is all connected and i most certainly believe that something happens after death, although it is probably not pearly gates or a bunch of virgins haha
There is a quote I like, it goes: "I believe in God, only I spell it N-a-t-u-r-e." Frank Lloyd Wright
Dang. I put a 1. In my opinion, I am 100% sure. This board has alot of non-believers. Diversity! Of course, I am against Organized Religion. Not exactly against, I just don't support it. I have my own beleifs, not the church. Yes, I do believe strongly.
This is a good thread. I'd place myself as a 6 in the poll. Just a few interesting quotes that caught my eye... sorry, not trying to offend anyone with my responses, just attracted to a good debate! Science is not at all faith-based. It is evidence-based, and when you have evidence that confirms an explanation, then you don't need to put "faith" in that explanation. If some new evidence came along that was against that explanation, we would revise, append or throw out that explanation. It's like a continuous search for the truth based on the most current evidence. Also, no one needs to say: "we have faith that the scientific rules we use are correct," because we more or less validate them through experiments. I'm not sure what kind of response you were looking for.. I doubt he was refusing to answer, but rather refusing to make something up.... because the fact is: we don't *yet* know the answer to those questions. If an answer like "god created it all" works for you, I don't understand how that is better. It hasn't explained anything. If someone did say god created it all, that's fine. Now where is their proof? If there is none, then how is that a satisfactory answer to the question?? I would rephrase that to say: Evolution seems the most likely because all the evidence so far supports it. Atheism is a disbelief in the existence of god... only. There are atheists that do not believe in evolution. (Seems that it doesn't depend on any sort of evidence either) 'God is an independent clause' is just a statement to me. One that is based on the assumption that a god exists. Yes, if a god existed, it would still exist if we didn't accept it. Similarly, if a god didn't exist, it still wouldn't exist whether we accepted that or not... For all practical reasoning, that doesn't really mean a whole lot. It doesn't prove that one exists (or doesn't exist)... it doesn't even attempt to prove anything. Anyway, I'm not sure how people come to voting 1 or 7.. I always find it interesting. I just want to ask one question: based on what??
I voted 6. I was raised Catholic, went to both a Catholic primary school and high school, attended church every week, etc, so it took me until I was about 17-18 to realise "Hang on - the only reason I believe in this because I've been indoctrinated into thinking it's true." I also felt guilty if I even entertained the thought that God might not exist. Eventually though I came to the realisation that reason and logic were more real and comforting than some vaguely defined supernatural being that could be twisted and misrepresented in order to serve some organisation's purposes. The other day I found this, which pretty much accurately defines what I currently believe. And what Frank Lloyd Wright believed, apparently! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_naturalism
i voted 7 basically because put simply i dont believe. i dont think religon is nessecary or healthy in todays world, morality is good, religon and doctrine is not. this is just my opinion.
Hehe don't worry,i love a good debate to! I thought id try and explain what my statement meant... The first point about him not answering the question was a little jokey dig at dawkins. He based his whole lecture on the basis that he arrived at his beliefs via evidence and scientific proof. Fair enough,im with him here When someone asked him what he thought about the big bang and what was there before it,what started it etc, he refused to engage in conjecture and admitted he,and science, didn't know. Again,fair enough. BUT he then said something along the lines of 'however i firmly believe that,in time,science will provide the answers to this question.' This struck me as odd. For a man who had given a whole lecture on proof and evidence,he seemed to be professing some form of 'faith' in science about an issue that there is,as of yet, no proof or evidence, of a concrete kind,for any scientific theory. Secondly,i think you may have miss-understood my point of view,or i didnt explain it clearly, i dont know which I dont believe god created everything. I believe in the big bang and evolution and all the generall accepted scientific theories as to how we got where we are today. However i do believe in a 'god' of some sort. Now, how did i, someone rational and logical (or at least i like to think ) arrive at that rather irational and ilogical solution conclusion? Well, when we do not have scientific proof or evidence to provide an answer to a certain question,then all we have are theories. And logically we must take the theory that best answers the question. For me,the best theory,which answers all the question of 'what was there before the big bang,what instigated it etc?' is that there is some kind of supernatural being,with the capacity to do this. This is my idea of what god is. Finally,i absolutely do not agree with organised religion, which often through history seems able to take a very noble idea,with a core belief system that should benefit everyone, and turn it into a weapon of hate. Anyone who does this is,i believe,completely missing the point of their religion.
I'm a total atheist level 7. I think the Dod Delusion is such a good book and Richard Dawkins is a genius. Religion is fundamentally flawd from whatever direction you look and most of the hate people have is fueled by some sort of religious doctrine. Religion? No thanks. I prefer reason and science thankyou very much.
i said 5 all the things that happen would tell me there isnt but i cant prove theres nothing else out there.
How so? I don't think so. Religion is like a gun. You can use it to hurt others, or not. It is not inherently "evil" unless you want it to be. Most of the hate is fueled by humans - I am an atheist, and I believe that humans made up religion, god, etc. It came out of *our* imaginations. So religion or not, humans will still find a way to hurt one another without religion.
