Is there a god? Quick poll.

[ZeeJustin]

[spamuell]

Yes, flame me, it will be good for me.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
ag·nos·tic n.

a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone who claims A is basically saying that God is defined in a such a way that its existence or lack there of cannot be proven by any scientific means. Most of these people will still lean towards "there is a god" or "there isn't", but they are not only unsure of themselves, but unsure that mankind will ever provide an answer to this question with any amount of certainty.

Someone who claims B simply is torn between what they were raised to believe (this is a generalization obviously), and what their life experiences and reasoning have lead them to believe. Most aethiests were agnostic for a good amount of time.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

because it's possible to be borderline between athiest and agnostic. I claim agnosticism just to keep from having to argue from the athiest point of view. there's just not quite enough concrete evidence in support of atheism to bother trying to argue with people who are completely convinced of a position with equally no (scientific concrete) evidence whatsoever, but whom are far more determined to convince you of their point of view, evidence or not. You see, I don't give a [censored] whether I can convince YOU there's NO god, but that will rarely be the same from a religious person. Therefore I claim agnosticism, even tho I am really more of an athiest.

al

[spamuell]

Someone who claims B simply is torn between what they were raised to believe (this is a generalization obviously), and what their life experiences and reasoning have lead them to believe.

That is me.

But at the end of the day, when all is said and done, when [insert other cliché here], no one can really KNOW, so clearly agnositicism is the only real option, even if one leans towards either side at one point or another.

[ZeeJustin]

Oops, lol. I misread your question. I thought you were asking how anyone could be agnostic /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I'm not going to get into this argument just yet.

[Taxman]

How do you know, you know what you know? Point being, it is possible for some people to know there is a God, just as it's possible for you to know you phone number, just for different reasons.

[ACPlayer]

How about -- it does not matter whether there is a god and discussions of god are a purely academic exercises in philosophy.

We also know that academic exercises are best left to liberals.

[RcrdBoy]

Isn't being agnostic just another way of saying that you can't make a decision?

You either believe or you don't. I don't know how you could half believe or partially not believe.

I can understand that you may not have thought about it enough. Or that you have views that are conflicted and you haven't resolved them, but that's being unsure.

Saying you are agnostic takes a stance that says you don't have one.

-Mike

[bernie]

you can have a very strong decision not to believe the fairy tale(s) that has been told, but still believe there was something that started it all. just because you dont know 'what' it is and cant put a name to it, doesn't make it a black and white decision.

that's not indecisive. that's not accepting something someone made up just to placate one's need to 'have' to know.

i personally, dont think we could comprehend what created everything.

this from a recovered catholic turned agnostic.

b

[Drunk Bob]

how can anybody vote #4?

[Drunk Bob]

Concrete evidence of atheism? The evidence that GOD does not punish the evil doers in this world.

If he is waiting for the afterlife I think I would consider consider GOD an a$$hole and would prefer HELL.

[Chris Villalobos]

Both Atheists and Theists claim some logical arguement is True, and therefore the burden of proof is on them. The Agnostic just simply claims he doesn't know (though some would say he claims that God's existance can't be proven). That is the differance between Atheists and Thiests vs. Agnostics.

After spending a semester in Philosophy 101 I'm a pure Agnostic (also known as a Negative Atheist). I thought I was an Atheist, but they have the same problems that the Theists have. They have yet to give a logical arguement that I can't shoot full of holes. The most common fallacy affecting the arguements tends to be Begging the Question (circular reasoning).

Chris Villalobos

[adios]

Actually this is worded poorly and is inconsistent with the b.

There is a god

To be consistent with:

I do not know if there is a god / I am agnostic / I do not believe it's possible to know what is out there.

it should read.

I know there is a god.

because many who would select a would interpret it as:

I believe i.e. I have faith that there is a god

Therefore someone could select a. and b. at the same time and not be inconsistent.

Here's a definition of agnostic that I found:

agnostic - a person who doubts truth of religion. a person who does not manifest devotion to a deity.

I think this is quite a bit different than what you wrote:

do not know if there is a god / I am agnostic / I do not believe it's possible to know what is out there.

Agnostic has always had the connotation for me as someone who is ambivalent towards the existence of god. I think it's possible and often happens that someone has faith that there is god but doesn't know in their own mind whether or not god actually exists.

[Drunk Bob]

There is no God. Otherwise how can you trust the RNGs at the poker sites? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't being agnostic just another way of saying that you can't make a decision?


[/ QUOTE ]


No. It really means that there is no good or sound evidence or reasoning ('scientific evidence') to base a decision on.

Do Unicorns exist? Does the Easter Bunny exist? Does Zeus exist? I postulate that a God called lghoirah exists and is actually in charge of all other Gods. Prove me wrong, or right.

Le Misanthrope

[David Steele]

Both Atheists and Theists claim some logical arguement is True, and therefore the burden of proof is on them. The Agnostic just simply claims he doesn't know

This kind of definition would make "knowing" anything impossble. It is extreme skepticism and is of no use.

Why have a property defintion ( knowing ) if it is already
given in advance that nothing will qualify for that property?

As an atheist I am happy with any of the following options:
(Add "therefor I am an atheist" after each)

1. There is no evidence for any theist position, atheism is not a position.

2. Natural explanations are adequate for understanding all
phenomena.

3. The probability that a particular theist claim is true is extremely low, even if hard skeptics say we can't know for sure.

4. There are good historical reasons for why there are so many wacky theist theories and now is good time to come to our senses.

D.

[Chris Villalobos]

Yeah. Yeah. Try to reduce my position to the absurd.

There are many things that can be known given you accept the premises, but (in my experience) God isn't one of them. Atheists do hold a position: God does not exist! It's as simple as that.

Just because something is highly improbable doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Being a poker player you should have some appreciation for that.

I do know that this agrument can go on for ever with neither of us being satisfied. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Chris V

[David Steele]

I don't consider it an attempt to mark your position absurd. It is more of an attempt to find definitions that are useful.

Theist - believes with very little doubt
Agnostic - has signifigant doubt
Atheist - Does not believe with high degree of certainity

If we use hard skepticism and call everyone agnostic I believe we fail to characterize the actual positions.

For instance I do not want to categorized with those agnostics that give serious consideration to organzied religion even though I may believe there is say .000000001% chance that one of those religions actually has the correct theory.

If we operate the way you suggest in law, no accused criminal would be convicted as there is always some doubt if not reasonable doubt. Perhaps his crime was a mass illusion created by god or the devil if you prefer.

D.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
Agnostic has always had the connotation for me as someone who is ambivalent towards the existence of god. I think it's possible and often happens that someone has faith that there is god but doesn't know in their own mind whether or not god actually exists.


[/ QUOTE ]

So it's impossible for someone to believe that there isn't a God, but accepting of the fact that he might discover otherwise? Or for someone to doubt there is a God, but explore religion anyway as a exercise in spiritual growth? Both are different than being ambivalent about the whole thing, but I would say both accurately describe agnostics. My dictionary says an agnostic is "One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists." The relative interest "one" has in the matter is irrelevant in the case of that deffinition. I know this is just more inane blather from me, but if you want to split hairs, then I figure I might as well do it with you /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

[Taxman]

You're wrong, because a god named Nincompoop is the one who made lghoirah to begin with. All hail Nincompoop! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Taxman]

Like I said before, it's possible for someone to know there is a God, just as it's possible to know your way home from work, or to borrow an example from Contact (gotta love Jodie Foster /images/graemlins/smile.gif), just as it's possible to know that you love your parents/siblings/significant others. Hell, it's just as possible to know that there is not a God or that there can never be proof one way or the other. In the end, it will always be a personal decision, because we all "know" the world in slightly different ways.

[bigpooch]

Pascal had some choice words about believing in God!

To believe there is an absolute proof of the existence of
God from the domain of science or philosophy is erroneous.
The famous theologian Karl Barth had some statements about
this: faith is required; if such a proof were to exist, what
is the value of faith? An interesting book on the study of
a rational justification of the belief in God is Alvin
Platinga's "God and Other Minds".

Obviously, no such proof exists. Nevertheless, there is the
need for apologetics to answer the common questions about
faith. Also, no such proof of the negation exists and to
claim the atheist position is extremely difficult: a
philosophical foundation would have to be accepted that many
would find impoverished.

On the other hand, to believe in empiricism or that all
truth can only be derived by empirical evidence or logic is
also badly mistaken. No all-encompassing system of truth
can exist. The logician Godel showed that even a consistent
axiomatic system rich enough for arithmetic will not be able
to determine the truth-value of a class of statements; in
fact, there will be a bifurcation for every such statement:
suppose such a statement is S: then the original system + S
is one system and the original system + (negation of S) is
another. This leads to the belief that even a famous work
like Spinoza's Ethics is flawed. Since I believe the truths
in this universe are rich enough to include arithmetic, no
simple system of truths (such as the underpinnings of the
philosophy of science) nor philosophy encapsulated in a few
statements could be sufficient to find all truth and
specifically, the truth-value of "Does God Exist?".

Everyone can see the progress and claims of science and
technology throughout the world, but the fundamental
question that should be asked is this: Are we better people
because of it? Sure, we may live longer and healthier lives
and not need to work as long as our forefathers and be able
to accumulate knowledge almost ad infinitum. Just because
the products of science are evident doesn't give science the
monopoly on truth!

There are tremendous results in science, especially in
physics: not just relativity, but also quantum mechanics and
particle physics. I don't know much about biotechnology,
but nothing other than mathematics makes such a deep
impression as physics and its obvious progress. But physics
doesn't answer the deeper questions (nor does it need to!)
about why we live on a tiny planet of such an insignificant
stellar system in one of the trillions of galaxies in the
cosmos and why your reading of this very post should have
any significant meaning whatsoever!

[scotnt73]

Let me start off by saying my wife is a Christian as well as most of my friends and family and i love them all. i was also raised in the church. To me it just seems like religion/afterlife is stuff thought up by people who are scared of death. I asked my wife the other day if monkeys goto heaven. her answer was no they dont have a soul. i then asked her what if they evolve over millions of years to be as smart as us like in planet of the apes? she got mad and told me to shup up because i was going to hell! /images/graemlins/grin.gif It still baffles me that people believe in an all powerful magic being that created everything and you must worship him or be tortured forever. that doesnt sound like love to me. deep down most the religious people i know do so because "what if there is a hell?"

[ZeeJustin]

I was trying to find the average IQ of various religions, but couldn't find any statisitics involving aethiests. If anyone could help me out with this search, I would appreciate it.

I did find this, however, which was very interesting: Gene Expression: IQ Religiosity Redux (http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001527.html)

Obviously this is far from any form of concrete evidence. I am merely posting this link because I found it very interesting.

[spamuell]

I was trying to find the average IQ of various religions, but couldn't find any statisitics involving aethiests.

Could you find any comparing different religions? Not that it's a competition or anything, I'd just be interested.

Anyway, the reason for this post was just to point out that atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive - I don't deny that I am Jewish but for a while I considered myself an atheist, although now I've reverted (progressed?) to being an agnostic again.

[Taxman]

Not necessarily. I would put myself on religious side of Agnosticism in that I believe in a higher power, but I remain open to the idea that there may not be. I do not believe in Hell. I don't exactly believe in heaven either, at least not in the biblical sense. I do not doubt that many choose to believe in God for the reasons you outline, but lets not be too unilateral about it. Sure, I'm scared of death. I enjoy living thank you very much, but that fear really doesn't have much of an impact on my beliefs other than making me believe that life's too short to risk it doing drugs or riding motorcycles.

My original post however was mostly intended to point out that there are many ways of "knowing" something and some people actually could "know" that there is a God. The ultimate truth of that knowledge is independant from it.

[Taxman]

100 is supposed to be the mean IQ number isn't it? If so, it seems unlikely to me that there would be so many countries with average IQs under 75. That's pretty low. Even if it is true, that probably mostly points to the bias exhibited by IQ tests. Different cultures likely stress different kinds of thinking. Nevertheless, an interesting tidbit.

[ZeeJustin]

I was under the impression that the average IQ in the US was around 100, and most countries were lower than this.

[ThaSaltCracka]

This is indeed a very interesting thread for me. I became a Catholic around the age of 8. Which may see strange for some Catholics, because many come out of the womb into the baptismal water. Anyways, I attended Catholic school from grade 4 through high school, and I can honestly say after being force fed Jesus and God for so many years you become skeptical. I have gotten into my fair shair of religious debates with angry religious teachers, odd that religion teachers get angry, eh?

anyways after high school I was more of a fairweather Catholic, maybe not even that. I didn't know what to believe, then of course I had my moment of revelation /images/graemlins/grin.gif, if you can call it that. I had a life experience, actually a couple that made me believe in God. Now, I don't particulary know why I believe in God, I just know I have felt him, and thats proof enough for me. Some of you guys out there may need concrete scientific proof, and thats fine, but thats really not what religion or faith is about. Faith being the key word. Now I respect the opinion that some people need proof, but maybe that "proof", when or if you find it, may not be in the form of science. In my experience with people who don't believe God, or who have lost believe in God, their answer is usually something like "well God didn't do this for me or he didn't let this person live", I don't think someones relationship with God should be about something like this. On the other hand I have met someone whose reason for not believing in God was " If God can control everything, then why does he let terrible things happen? If he does it so that people will turn to him, then thats not the type of God I want to believe in." A valid point.
Now I see that many people have responded that they are atheist or agnostic, and thats fine, if thats what you believe, but that doesn't mean that those of us who believe in God, or a God, are dumber than you or more naive. I have read comments that the stories of the bible are "fairy tales" and complete fiction, in many ways these are insulting statements to us, and I think you need to atleast respect our views. Religion and faith are not bad things to have, nobody should be ashamed to believe a God.

BTW, I am not afraid of death or the afterlife. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

Sure, I'm scared of death. I enjoy living thank you very much, but that fear really doesn't have much of an impact on my beliefs other than making me believe that life's too short to risk it doing drugs or riding motorcycles.
I agree with this taxman, but you don't mean Herb though? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Taxman]

No comment, lol /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I knew you were liberal taxman, now I know just how liberal you are /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[spamuell]

SaltCracka,

Sorry if I came off as condescending with my question, that wasn't how it was meant at all. I genuinely meant that I just don't understand how people can choose to be religious, which is strange, because I used to be religious myself - I grew up in a religious family, I used to spend a lot of time at synagogue and with the community.

I'm not suggesting that religious people are naïve at all, some of my best friends and relatives are religious, and they're amongst the most intelligent and savvy people that I know.

There was a comment that you made, however, which conflicts with my understanding of atheism/agnosticism:

Now I see that many people have responded that they are atheist or agnostic, and thats fine, if thats what you believe

For many people, myself included, agnosticism (I'll call it that rather than atheism as I accept that there is a significant chance that God exists) is not a belief in itself, rather a lack of acceptance of other beliefs.

As for your comments about fairy tales, in all honesty, I think that religious people are just much too sensitive about people rubbishing their views. If I have a discussion with a religious person and tell them that the Bible is woolly in places, some of them (although not all by any means) will become offended, yet they will gladly tell me that there clearly is a God, and to believe otherwise is heresy and I am going to hell. Go figure.

Anyway, my main point of this post is just to make it clear that I didn't intend to offend you and I do respect your religious views, although I don't agree with them.

Incidentally, Family Guy is one of the funniest programs ever on television! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Taxman]

The important thing is that I never inhaled! /images/graemlins/grin.gif Seriously though, it's not really my cup of tea, but I have been known try out things from time to time, and that's all you're going to get out of me!

[ThaSaltCracka]

haha My bad,
I didn't really respond to you, you were just the first reply. as for the agnostic thing, belief may have been the wrong word, how about "thats what you think". Anyways this is kind of apples and oranges.

I think that religious people are just much too sensitive about people rubbishing their views.
I think this is kind of ridiculous, calling stories that people believe as part of their faith, "fairy tales" is insulting. Now I am not particularly insulted by this, partly because I have never read the entire bible, nor do I intend to, however I realize that some of the stories are ridiculous. But some people value the stories for the morals they stress.

Incidently you are correct Family Guy is the funniest show on TV right now /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

haha dirty hippy /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Chris Villalobos]

Usually when doing religious (philosophical) debates we have pure positions, no shades of gray. You get people to agree to your premises then you march them down the road to a logical conclusion that cannot be debated. That is the game.

If you want to add probabilities to that, then you are playing a different game. Your argument also loses its strength to convice (or most likely aggravate) the "true believers".

When I get into the religious debate I take the Agnostic position and pick holes in the Atheist's and Theist's arguments. I do this because they are trying to PROVE to me that there is NO DOUBT that they are right and I'm wrong.

Finding a criminal guilty is a different matter. There we play with statistics. We presume the defendant is not guilty and error on the side of not guilty (though some in government would love to change this).

So what game do you want to play?

Chris V

[bigpooch]

Polling the "sheeple" again! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Consider the most intelligent human beings that inhabited
the planet in the last few centuries. Many of them believed
in God, although it could be true that few were religious.
Do any of these names ring a bell?

Swedenborg
Leibniz
Pascal

Of course, really intelligent humans can be wrong and
everyone is entitled to their own opinions (even if wrong!).
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ZeeJustin]

I'm not sure what your point is. There were also many intelligent people that didn't believe in good. Look at the enlightenment for example. Most of those philosophers were aethiest.

[scotnt73]

although not directed at me i want to state that my opinions are my own and in no way do i "fault" anyone for being religious. nor do i try to unconvert(is that even a word?) although i am not a believer i dont think people who are are less intellegent than me or in a fantasy world. as stated my wife is very religious and way more intelligent than me. the main problem if you would call it that is that since i dont "believe" nor fear HELL is that the ones who love me fear for my soul. yet i dont have to fear for thiers. so most people like myself who arent totally "out there" keep thier beliefs mostly to themselves. i would never tell my mother how i feel for example. she thinks i believe. i like these types of discussions to hear other peoples views.
i do strongly believe in being good to others. when i do discuss with my wife about how confusing religion is to me she states you have to have faith. that just doesnt do it for me personally. i definitely dont know anymore than any of you. i have studied the bible and used to believe as a child. im a curious person and have looked into most religions to get an idea of what they believe and think about the other religions and drew my own conclusions. ive been wrong before.

[bigpooch]

But not many were superintelligent geniuses with the
exception of John Stuart Mill and Wittgenstein; besides, I
could also have mentioned Descartes but IMHO, he wasn't as
brilliant as the others!

Polling is only useful as a guide of opinion as in political
polling. Why don't we poll the American public if they
still want to CONTINUE to support worldwide terrorism? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Actually, polling is useful for the elite to find out what
the masses are thinking to see if the propoganda machine is
finely tuned and to continue imposing their definition of
democracy (which isn't what the general public thinks they
are being duped into!).

I would guess this: for people of below genius intelligence
there would be a correlation between agnosticism/atheism
and IQ; however, for people above minimum genius
intelligence, the converse would hold. Why? It would take
a supreme genius to constuct a philosophical system to
support an atheistic view but he would also know it to be
utterly useless to answer some very basic questions.

Also, aren't Ashkenazi Jews on average approximately one
standard deviation above the norm on IQ tests? Clearly,
they believe in God. I also read somewhere that there was
a conjecture that the less intelligent of the Jews in the
Middle Ages converted to Christianity (probably one of the
corrupted versions emanating from Rome or Constantinople!).
I would argue they were religious but didn't believe in God!
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[spamuell]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, aren't Ashkenazi Jews on average approximately one
standard deviation above the norm on IQ tests?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did you hear this? I'm an Ashkenazi Jew, so naturally I'd like it to be true! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly,
they believe in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not buying that. Many (most, even) of my friends are Ashkenazi Jews and many of them do not believe in God or have parents (and grandparents etc) who are atheists but keep their Jewish identity as they view it as an important tradition.

Obviously this is based on a sample size of... my friends. But, it's definitely not correct to say that all Ashkenazi Jews believe in God.

[bigpooch]

Right! Not all of them believe in God, but perhaps you and
some of your friends (and your forebearers) are
apostates!
/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As far as I remember, from that controversial book "The Bell
Curve", or the fallout, there was something about Ashkenazi
Jews scoring higher on standardized tests. Here's a link I
was looking at recently that is only related:

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001350.html

[Chris Villalobos]

There was a time that I.Q. testers thought immigrants were less intellegent than Americans because the test was biased toward Anglo-American culture. For example: A test question used the game tennis to test the I.Q. of a Chinese immigrant.

These findings helped fuel descrimination against immigrants in the early 1900's.

So I.Q. isn't a good test for comparing other contries vs. America.

Chris V

[David Steele]

There are more abstract tests that do not have a cultural bias problem. Not sure what their using here though.


D.

[DonWaade]

I am not sure the thought process behind this. Many great minds of all time were religious. Many were not. How is that relevant to anything. Are you implying that only less than intelligent men are not religious, or vice versa? Blaise Pascal was indeed a great mind. He however was not religious per se. He just refused to eliminate that as an option. But then again what makes up a great mind?

[Chris Villalobos]

Well, you have to agree that any test that shows that one country is "smarter" than another is most likely be biased. I'm not talking about education levels, but the peoples' mental abilities.

Though maybe poor nutrition or some other physical anomaly might cause a difference in a group of people; I don't believe there is any creditable research that shows one race (country) is smarter than another. That was my point in responding in the first place.

Now in a homogeneous group of people it may be true that nonreliligios people are more intelligent. I'd like to think that way. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Chris V