Poll for Atheists

[Morpheus]

I am no judge on what is possible and what is not, ergo I don't know if it's possible or if it's not possible. The word nescessary is quite confusing there: if the thing is nescessary it must be possible and more. If God exists, he is possible, if he doesn't, he isn't (being nescessary by your definition): I don't know if he does, I just don't believe it.

 

[Poetic Justice]

I am no judge on what is possible and what is not, ergo I don't know if it's possible or if it's not possible. The word nescessary is quite confusing there: if the thing is nescessary it must be possible and more. If God exists, he is possible, if he doesn't, he isn't (being nescessary by your definition): I don't know if he does, I just don't believe it.

If you don't know then that's another vote for possible. Only if you truly believed 100% that there is no god could you vote for not possible.

I don't think we're talking Christian god here. Just god in a loose sense of the word. In which case i think it's ridiculous to vote for anything other than possible. To truly know that there is no god a person would have to a comprehensive understanding of how the universe works and how it came to be.

There is not a single person alive today or who has ever lived that has this knowledge so it can't be ruled out that a designer of some sort exists.

Just to clarifv, I'm about as sure as i could ever be about anything that the Christian god does not exist. I think it has been proven conclusively that this and most other religions are invented. In fact our man made notions of god are probably so far off the mark that "god" is likely the wrong word to use to describe the designer if it exists.

 

[Galileo]

yeah, it's possible. we just don't know it yet.

 

[Morpheus]

If you don't know then that's another vote for possible. Only if you truly believed 100% that there is no god could you vote for not possible.

I don't think we're talking Christian god here. Just god in a loose sense of the word. In which case i think it's ridiculous to vote for anything other than possible. To truly know that there is no god a person would have to a comprehensive understanding of how the universe works and how it came to be.

There is not a single person alive today or who has ever lived that has this knowledge so it can't be ruled out that a designer of some sort exists.

Just to clarifv, I'm about as sure as i could ever be about anything that the Christian god does not exist. I think it has been proven conclusively that this and most other religions are invented. In fact our man made notions of god are probably so far off the mark that "god" is likely the wrong word to use to describe the designer if it exists.

If the question were: "Do you believe it is possible that there is a god?" My answer would definitely be yes, though I find the proposition unlikely.

But: the the poll asks wether a nescessary god is possible. If a nescessary thing is possible, it must exist, because it's nescessary: nescessary things, by definiton, must be, and nescessity overrides possibility. This thread seems to be a semantic trap to make atheists pronounce (without underestanding what they say, thus rendering it meaningless) that there is a god.

That I can do, if there is delight to be found in it for someone, even without being tricked: there is a God and He is almighty, praise the Heavenly Father.

Meaningless words, still.

 

[Poetic Justice]

If the question were: "Do you believe it is possible that there is a god?" My answer would definitely be yes, though I find the proposition unlikely.

But: the the poll asks wether a nescessary god is possible. If a nescessary thing is possible, it must exist, because it's nescessary: nescessary things, by definiton, must be, and nescessity overrides possibility. This thread seems to be a semantic trap to make atheists pronounce (without underestanding what they say, thus rendering it meaningless) that there is a god.

Or is it a rather clever trap designed to make true atheists realise the folly of their position?

Agnosticism is the only logical answer based on our current understanding of the universe

 

[Morpheus]

Or is it a rather clever trap designed to make true atheists realise the folly of their position?

Agnosticism is the only logical answer based on our current understanding of the universe

I don't see how the poll could accomplish that. But be is as it may, belief stems not purely out of logic and intellect: I can not believe in a God-maybe, for God either is or is not. Hence I act as though it is not, because I believe that to be the sensible option. My intellect tells me I'm not nescessarily right, and I accept that, I even believe it. Yet that doesn't mean that I don't not believe in God (I love the cryptic phrasing, sorry).

Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge: nobody knows whether there is a god or not (most all knowing is impossible, from a philosophical point of view). The choise here is between agnosticism and fanaticism.

Atheism and theism deal with belief: here either option is possible. But you must choose. Unless you are unfamiliar with the concept of God, I believe, there is no way to leave the question unanswered. The answer is displayed by your actions: you can't seek absolution-maybe.

 

[Barnabas]

there is no way to leave the question unanswered. The answer is displayed by your actions: you can't seek absolution-maybe.

+1,999,99,999,999,999,999

 

[Poetic Justice]

I don't see how the poll could accomplish that.

If you pose the question "Are you 100% sure there is no god" to a logicaly minded atheist it would cause most to realise that it can't be ruled out 100%. Thereby causing them to no longer be atheists.

I thought that was quite obvious actually

But be is as it may, belief stems not purely out of logic and intellect: I can not believe in a God-maybe, for God either is or is not. Hence I act as though it is not, because I believe that to be the sensible option. My intellect tells me I'm not nescessarily right, and I accept that, I even believe it. Yet that doesn't mean that I don't not believe in God (I love the cryptic phrasing, sorry).

Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with knowledge: nobody knows whether there is a god or not (most all knowing is impossible, from a philosophical point of view). The choise here is between agnosticism and fanaticism.

Atheism and theism deal with belief: here either option is possible. But you must choose. Unless you are unfamiliar with the concept of God, I believe, there is no way to leave the question unanswered. The answer is displayed by your actions: you can't seek absolution-maybe.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

WHY can't you leave the question unanswered?

We don't know the answer. There is no evidence either way.

The question IS unanswered. I'm sorry but it just is. You can't prove he exists. Nobody has yet been able to prove he doesn't.

Having a strong belief either way is just deluding yourself.

 

[Morpheus]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

WHY can't you leave the question unanswered?

We don't know the answer. There is no evidence either way.

The question IS unanswered. I'm sorry but it just is. You can't prove he exists. Nobody has yet been able to prove he doesn't.

Having a strong belief either way is just deluding yourself.

You can't leave the question unanswered because the answer dictates your action. Case in point, if you believe in christian God, you will have to seek absolution from him. If you don't believe in him, you won't need to seek absolution. You may say you don't know wheter he exists or not, but you will still have to make the decision: will you live as though he did or as though he didn't.

As I said, you can still admit you are not nescessarily right: it's only sensible.

 

[Poetic Justice]

You can't leave the question unanswered because the answer dictates your action. Case in point, if you believe in christian God, you will have to seek absolution from him. If you don't believe in him, you won't need to seek absolution. You may say you don't know wheter he exists or not, but you will still have to make the decision: will you live as though he did or as though he didn't.

As I said, you can still admit you are not nescessarily right: it's only sensible.

I don't beleive in a christian god. It's quite clear than man invented this. What I'm talking about is god in a VERY loose sense of the term i.e. a designer of the universe.

This question is unanswered and I don't think it serves any purpose to have a beleif about whether or not there is one at this moment in time

 

[Morpheus]

I don't beleive in a christian god. It's quite clear than man invented this. What I'm talking about is god in a VERY loose sense of the term i.e. a designer of the universe.

This question is unanswered and I don't think it serves any purpose to have a beleif about whether or not there is one at this moment in time

That being the case I think you have a valid point. But it kind of goes besides the whole discussion: people aren't generally talking about a being, maybe consciouss, that is the universe or the mind behind it when they are talking about God. In fact, I don't see much reason to call such being God for the word has too much historical and cultural baggage to it.

In essence a non-judgemental, non-interfering God is irrelevant: maybe there is one, maybe there isn't. It doesn't mean much to us on a practical level, it's an object of intellectual curiosity at most.

 

[Faye]

What do you mean by necessary? Do you mean certain?

And what makes this God greatest? Is it his/her/its capacity for good?

 

[Praefect]

I don't believe it is possible. Our understanding of the cosmos is extraordinary- Any mind present would have to abide by the rules set out in the universe and I don't see a way of making that happen. Information is stored in energy and mass, and the energy and mass that exists in the universe is not sufficient to store the information the universe contains and allow a mind to comprehend it. How would such a mind be constructed, anyways? If our stars and planets and galaxies and superclusters are all part of a giant mind, a mechanism beyond our comprehension, there is still time as a factor. In our brains it takes up to 0.2 seconds for information to be processed and understood, and you know the size of our brain. If our universe was a mind, because of the laws set within it, it would take information from one end traveling to the other at the fastest speed possible longer than the universe is old. Actually, it might not ever get there, because our universe is expanding at the fastest speed possible at this point in time and it may continue to do so forever.

We have seen far and wide, and deep back into time, and there is nothing there but what we expect to find there, or can be explained rationally using the laws we have already discovered.

Our understanding also precedes the big bang and outside of our own universe by now. We can't know for certain unless we find a way to verify our theories by creating our own universe, but the theoretical structure is sound. The big bang is being demystified.

We can also see the future. We have the rules down, and we can project what will happen, and what will happen is so dreary and pointless that it defies creationism with intent and purpose. Stars will die. Black Holes will die. And then, even matter itself will die. That means that all that will be left of all this is a universe expanding forever in all directions completely empty and devoid of anything at all. Unchangeable vacuum, blackness, emptiness, everywhere, for eternity.

So, my answer is no.

 

[Jack]

Dude you are so perfect, your post is like one big atheist cliche. I love it... everything is so absolute, as if we've in principle figured everything out. Its like the New Atheist delusion, but with the melancholy undertone of one who's faced the brutal reality of the inevitable conclusion of those propositions.

 

[Praefect]

Dude you are so perfect, your post is like one big atheist cliche. I love it... everything is so absolute, as if we've in principle figured everything out. Its like the New Atheist delusion, but with the melancholy undertone of one who's faced the brutal reality of the inevitable conclusion of those propositions.

I'm glad that you're amused by my answer. If you care enough you can change my mind. All you have to do for that is to show me where it could me. Show me how it can work. Without resorting to fantastical speculations.

At some point I stopped believing in the possibility that the monster under my bed exists. Is that a delusion too? At what point does a small chance become no chance that the next time I get out of bed hands with claws with grab my feet and drag me under to their lair? And at what point does an argument about this become an argument about semantics?

 

[Jack]

I'm glad that you're amused by my answer. If you care enough you can change my mind. All you have to do for that is to show me where it could me. Show me how it can work. Without resorting to fantastical speculations.

At some point I stopped believing in the possibility that the monster under my bed exists. Is that a delusion too? At what point does a small chance become no chance that the next time I get out of bed hands with claws with grab my feet and drag me under to their lair? And at what point does an argument about this become an argument about semantics?

I doubt I can change your mind. You seem to be confusing the question of "how it works" with "whether it is". You also don't seem to be taking the proposition seriously enough for me to think you are serious.

That said, I will settle for being amused.

 

[TheLastMohican]

If you pose the question "Are you 100% sure there is no god" to a logicaly minded atheist it would cause most to realise that it can't be ruled out 100%. Thereby causing them to no longer be atheists.

Would you apply the same strict definition to theists, saying that anyone who does not claim 100% certainty is an agnostic?

 

[Poetic Justice]

Would you apply the same strict definition to theists, saying that anyone who does not claim 100% certainty is an agnostic?

I didn't say you are agnostic if you don't believe 100%.

Read it again

 

[TheLastMohican]

I didn't say you are agnostic if you don't believe 100%.

Right, that's why I'm asking. You did say one is not an atheist in that case, so I want to know if you apply the same standard to theism.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Right, that's why I'm asking. You did say one is not an atheist in that case, so I want to know if you apply the same standard to theism.

I meant not a true atheist. I did say that in my first post about this but neglected to add the word true the next time it was relevant. By true i mean they are certain of their belief. It matter not whether they are theist or atheist. If you have doubt then you do not truly believe. Which is a good thing btw.

That doesn't mean they are agnostic. If you have a strong leaning one way or the other then i would say that you are simply an atheist with doubts or vice versa. Agnostics refrain from having an opinion. If you ask one if god exists he will shrug his shoulders