Poll: Belief or lack of

[HelioPrime]

Seeing as how the population around here has changed in the recent days I thought I'd do a quick belief or lack poll. I anticipate based of current population an overwhelming majority of atheists.

Out of interests of keeping the poll clean here are the descriptions of the options:

Atheist level 1: There is/never will be/ can't possibly be any type of God that impacts human existence. Religion is just a story and everything has a natural explanation.

Atheist level 2: There exists no God as described by any religion. While there might be a low probability of a deistic or God like creatures none of them impact us so we need to stop worrying about it.


Agnostic level 1: There might or might not be a God or God(s) but I doubt they impact us and without any evidence I'd rather just not worry about it.

Agnostic level 2: There is probably some type of God or God(s) but we don't know for sure so I'll just live life well and hope for the best. No use trying to follow a religion when we have no proof.


Theist level 1: There is most certainly a God of some type although all the worldly religions have likely developed more along human desire and forgotten whatever true words might be present in scripture.

Theist level 2: There is most certainly a God. The God of (insert) religion is correct, and others are false or just human development of the same God. Belief is required for salvation.

[davedes]

That poll doesn't leave much room for other possibilities.

I am an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in god as it is commonly understood, nor do I believe that there is any way to definitively know that god exists.

However, with that said, I am rather spiritual.

(An odd combination of beliefs, eh?)

[Gods_Mercenary]

Ya think?

Agnostic Level 1 or 2, depending how pissed off I am, and at who.

[HelioPrime]

I didn't want it to expand that much.

For davedes I'd say that puts you as agnostic one. You doubt God exists and you don't believe we'll ever be able to know for sure.

[Ant32bit]

The nature of atheism, to me at least, implies an open-mindedness to any possibility provided the evidence is there. I would definitely never speak in absolutes (except in maths, |p|) but the probability of a god is very, very low. In fact, I'll throw in another 'very' for good measure.

Still, I'm a little perplexed. Why have you used checkboxes instead of radio controls? Can you really belong in more than one category?

[Okieslims]

I don't like the classifications..

I'm atheist level 3
I require real evidence to support my beliefs. If genuine evidence were provided that we are the result of an alien orgy gone wrong, then I would believe it. If genuine evidence was provided that there was actually a god.. I would believe it.

Essentially, an atheist is somebody that isnt going to take your word for it. The bible defines man as wicked yet then we are supposed to accept christianity from the mouth of man. I'll pass.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Where does the Bible define man as wicked? corrupted, maybe, but not wicked.

[Okieslims]

I'm pretty sure it says wicked.. could be wrong.. Ill try to find a passage while at work tonight..

for the purposes of my point though, corrupted will work just as well

[HelioPrime]

I can't edit. I would consider changing atheist level 2 to "no god due to lack of any evidence thus far."

Perhaps a mod could add that part in please?

[Ant32bit]

Quote by: Okieslims If genuine evidence were provided that we are the result of an alien orgy gone wrong, then I would believe it.

Okieslims, I agree. It seems that the classifications adhere to the Creationist way of thinking. If we prove evolution wrong, then it must be God. Fact is, if you prove evolution wrong, it proves we never really knew how life became so complicated and that we need to use the gathered evidence to concoct a new hypothesis.

[lsbskins1]

I'd opt for Agnostic Level 1 as closest, but must say the "rather not worry about it" part implies a level of flippancy not present in my thought process.

[shawmutt]

Why are there levels? I'm agnostic--without knowledge.

[gela]

I ticked atheist level 2 and agnostic level 1.

I am atheist in the belief that there is definitely no god, how any major religion portrays him.

I am agnostic in the belief that there could be a creator, but I don't think there is. If he did exist, then he wouldn't meddle in our petty lives.

[linda_mary_13]

I had a cat named Maggy. She died in front of me as a result of a broken back. The night she died I happen to be sitting right in front of her, worried about her recovery. I saw in her eyes that beautiful look of hers and suddenly her eyes had no gleam to them. They looked dead and empty instantly. There was no question what had just happened. It was silent yet shockingly obvious she died. Her presence was gone. That presence is the presence of God. An invisible presence that isn't seen until it's gone.

When I looked down after I realized what happened, I saw a dead cat. Maggy wasn't there.

I see the presence of God every day, every where, but never so much as the night Maggy died.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: shawmutt Why are there levels? I'm agnostic--without knowledge.

Ignorance has never stopped anybody from having an opinion :) Very few agnostics will say they truly don't know; most that I've met lean in one direction or the other.

I'm not sure if I'm closer to Atheist 2 or Agnostic 1. I've contented myself with poking holes in most of the major religions and concluding that there's no good reason to believe in gods in general so they exist as a slightly silly hypothetical, like the Loch Ness monster. If there really is some sort of god and he/she/it wants me to believe in it then it'll introduce itself. A superintelligent lunatic god that has deliberately hidden itself is scary; what if I die and get told off by God for failing to hold blind irrational faith in it? Even worse, what if god's that sort of lunatic and happens to be named Ra or Odin? What if its so cantankerous and illogical that its never even revealed itself to humans at all and set me up to fail? What if its there, completely sane, and just doesn't want attention? What if its mostly sane and wants me to glory in picking my nose and eating it? You can justify any action this way, and come to think of it a lot of people do justify strange shit just this way.

If I ever find proof of, say, Ra I'll be building temples to that specific possible deity in a minute. Until that time the only logical thing to do is not to worry about it.

[gallo]

My intention was to start a new thread with this, but this one has provided the perfect introduction.

Does any of this sound familiar to any of you, or, more importantly, do any of you agree with this.

1. Total depravity: as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered.

2. Unconditional election: before God created the world, he chose to save some people according to his own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons.

3. Limited atonement: Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers.

4. Irresistible grace: the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom He has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ.

5. Perseverance of the saints: none who are truly saved can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith.

I didn't make any of this up. Every bit of it is from Wikipedia. It is also what the Enlightenment rejected, and that rejection was fundamental to the founding of the U.S.

[Sweet Katie]

This is me:

Agnostic Level 3: There is probably some type of God or God(s) but we don't know for sure. The most I can do is research all the religions and find the truth for me, although I must keep an open mind at all times, and never become rigid in unproven viewpoints.

[Chaossaber314]

Somewhere between Agnostic 2 and Theist 1.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: gallo My intention was to start a new thread with this, but this one has provided the perfect introduction. Does any of this sound familiar to any of you, or, more importantly, do any of you agree with this. 1. Total depravity: as a consequence of the Fall of Man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin and, apart from the efficacious or prevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to follow God or choose to accept salvation as it is freely offered. 2. Unconditional election: before God created the world, he chose to save some people according to his own purposes and apart from any conditions related to those persons. 3. Limited atonement: Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humanity but rather just believers. 4. Irresistible grace: the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom He has determined to save (the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith in Christ. 5. Perseverance of the saints: none who are truly saved can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith. I didn't make any of this up. Every bit of it is from Wikipedia. It is also what the Enlightenment rejected, and that rejection was fundamental to the founding of the U.S.

Calvinist Theology, that's what that is, crazy lawyers. By the way, I wouldn't say the enlightenment rejected this, since many today still beleive in it, and the Catholics and Lutherans had always rejected it.

[lsbskins1]

It is a thoelogy that allows one to justify being a dick and still being able to get in heaven. If we are all unavoidably evil, the greedy and uncaring have a built in rationalization for just doing what they want. If our acts can not affect our salvation, there is no need to act in any way that you feel restricts you. The best part of the whole thing was the contention that if you were successful (that is rich and powerful) that was a sign of God's grace being with you. Calvin was a self-justifying prick. Austere in certain sociopathic ways, but basically, a self-justifying prick.