Belief systems poll

[Synobun]

Also, the phrase "you cannot prove or disprove God" is only actually true if God does not exist. If Russell's teapot is actually there, then it IS possible (eventually) to prove that it is there.

I would assume a higher being would possess the capability of not being detected by primitive humans. Somehow, I doubt God is really just the underpaid cop doing a stake out right across the road from his target with his car light on munching on cheap pizza that anyone can notice, especially the guy he is trying to discreetly watch.

 

[El_Machinae]

I do not think you can actually prove that (a certain) god exists either.

No, you're right. You quickly can get straight to solipsism. I was using the word 'prove' colloquially.

Synsensa: sorry, I misspoke. What I meant is that the existence of a god (or many conceptions thereof) IS provable. Just maybe not by people. All of the Judeo-Christian gods are described as provable, or else Elijah's calling down of the fire is a weird tale. If someone wants to describe God as unprovable, they have to throw in additional attributes (without evidence) to show that this god actually is incapable of providing evidence of its existence.

 

[Borachio]

I think I may be with Synsensa on this one. But I wouldn't like to commit myself.

I'm usually fairly positive. But somedays I just don't know what I think.

 

[Synobun]

Synsensa: sorry, I misspoke. What I meant is that the existence of a god (or many conceptions thereof) IS provable. Just maybe not by people. All of the Judeo-Christian gods are described as provable, or else Elijah's calling down of the fire is a weird tale. If someone wants to describe God as unprovable, they have to throw in additional attributes (without evidence) to show that this god actually is incapable of providing evidence of its existence.

Oh, then we're in agreement to a certain extent. I just think it's a bit silly to consider the idea of humans trumping a higher being and shouting, "Ha, caught ya!" excitedly like we just won the world's best hide and go seek game.

 

[Borachio]

Any God is certainly incapable of proving its existence, imo.

Even a material manifestation could easily be dismissed as something else. Or an hallucination.

In fact, can any being positively prove its existence to another? Assuming the other was sufficiently motivated not to believe.

 

[Kyriakos]

Any God is certainly incapable of proving its existence, imo.

Even a material manifestation could easily be dismissed as something else. Or an hallucination.

In fact, can any being positively prove its existence to another? Assuming the other was sufficiently motivated not to believe.

No Same thing happens in all those "The Thing" movies or similar plots, including the traditional stolen identity plot.

We function on the basis of partial belief in some things, such as that others are humans too, that almost all other people won't try to kill us (in normal societies anyway) etc.

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, then we're in agreement to a certain extent. I just think it's a bit silly to consider the idea of humans trumping a higher being and shouting, "Ha, caught ya!" excitedly like we just won the world's best hide and go seek game.

Oh, sure. But if the god doesn't exist, then the statement "the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven" is actually true. It's a 'believed to be false' if the god actually exists, and the statement cannot be honestly (usually) made by a believer.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Poll doesn't understand atheism nor agnosticism.

Must try harder in the future.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Do enlighten, oh great Ziggy.

Or forever keep your straws about, anyway.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Definitions would be a large factor.

Agnosticism isn't some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism, it's a different ballpark.

 

[Kyriakos]

Definitions would be a large factor.

Agnosticism isn't some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism, it's a different ballpark.

You named it as "some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism" (so as to dismiss it being named as such), so i suppose you dismissed yourself while projecting yourself onto my poll. Well done

Spoiler :

And still there is no mention of what you find incorrect about the options. The question is which of these is closer to one's belief on this issue. Kind of pointless to ask what is closer and then only have the most wide categories available (atheism or belief in a god, and agnosticism). A bit better to have more categories which seem to be practically useful given than the poll replies are there in significant numbers for most of the options.

.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, what Ziggy is saying, is that atheism and theism are certainly a gradient. One can be certain either way, and one can be 'prone to believing' either way.

Gnosticism is a statement regarding one's beliefs regarding knowledge. It's also a gradient. Basically, it boils down to 'do you believe that it's possible to know if God exists'? You can have agnostics theists and agnostic atheists.

Now, granted, I don't think it's possible to be a hardcore theist (or atheist) without being a non-agnostic as well. It just doesn't make sense. But they are different scales.

I actually have no problem with the gradient you've put in the poll. As one agnosticism rises, one's certainty (regarding theism) should fall. And, vis versa.

 

[timtofly]

Definitions would be a large factor.

Agnosticism isn't some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism, it's a different ballpark.

I am unsure that theism is in this 'poll' -park.

 

[Bartleby]

I am almost positive that there is no god.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You named it as "some sort of middle-ground between theism and atheism" (so as to dismiss it being named as such), so i suppose you dismissed yourself while projecting yourself onto my poll. Well done

I dismissed myself when signing up here.

(strong atheism) I am almost positive, or entirely positive, that there is no god.

(weak atheism) I heavily lean towards the belief there is no god, without being positive about it.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1]

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Your first poll option is labelled strong atheism, but actually describes both strong and weak atheism.

Your second one implies a lower amount of certainty, but weak atheism merely states that it doesn't exclude the existence while not believing. This not believing can be very positive.


(agnosticism, pure) I don't know if a god exists and have no leaning either way.

No quarrels here Oh wait, I have. I am a pure agnosticisticist. I am positive I cannot know whether a God exists or not. (Key word bolded) And I is an atheist!


(agnosticism, leans to entheism) I cannot say if a god exists, tend to think a god may exist.

(entheism) I am almost positive, or entirely positive, that there is a god.

So, after I googled entheism, I got

The word entheism is used to consolidate the various ideas that ”God” is within (“God” as metaphor for ‘universe, nature, being, consciousness, ‘higher power’, etc..’), which typically fall under the concepts of panentheism or pantheism.

And I went: Aha! Pantheism. My favourite flavour of theism No sarcasm. It really is.

Here's where I noticed middle ground idea . Strong atheism -> weak atheism -> agnosticism and "agnosticism, leans to entheism" to (entheism). The order of poll options very much implies a gradient flowing from butch atheist to sissy atheist to I dunno, etc, etc.

While you can be a very positive atheist, theist or entheist and be a pure agnost at the same time.

And still there is no mention of what you find incorrect about the options.

Definitions would be a large factor.

Easily missed

So, now we come full circle and we are back at Ziggy dismissing himself with wasting effort, my time, goodwill, i-ink and yes, your time .

So, what Ziggy is saying, is that atheism and theism are certainly a gradient. One can be certain either way, and one can be 'prone to believing' either way.

Actually, I never understood how theism and atheism are gradiental.

If one is certain, that's gnostic. If one is prone to believing one is more likely to become a theist. I don't see how you can be mostly atheist for instance. As I see it believing is an active process. You either engage in it, or you don't. But this is entirely subjective due to my lack of understanding about it. I am making no claims here about the truth of it.

Zealousness I can see as gradient.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd tend to say "strong atheism", with the qualifications that I don't think the non-existence of a god or gods can actually be proven, I just don't think that any recognisable conception of "god" is compatible with how I understand conciousness. It's not that I have taken the proposal "God exists", tested it, and found it to be untrue, but that I wouldn't know what to do with the proposal in the first place.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think the big problem with testing is lack of characteristics. What are the specifications of God? Or a God? There's a million different ones out there.

Which is why I like pantheism. The idea of testing that boggles me fragile little mind.

 

[Kyriakos]

I dismissed myself when signing up here.

(strong atheism) I am almost positive, or entirely positive, that there is no god.

(weak atheism) I heavily lean towards the belief there is no god, without being positive about it.

Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1]

Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none.

Your first poll option is labelled strong atheism, but actually describes both strong and weak atheism.

Your second one implies a lower amount of certainty, but weak atheism merely states that it doesn't exclude the existence while not believing. This not believing can be very positive.


(agnosticism, pure) I don't know if a god exists and have no leaning either way.

No quarrels here Oh wait, I have. I am a pure agnosticisticist. I am positive I cannot know whether a God exists or not. (Key word bolded) And I is an atheist!


(agnosticism, leans to entheism) I cannot say if a god exists, tend to think a god may exist.

(entheism) I am almost positive, or entirely positive, that there is a god.

So, after I googled entheism, I got

The word entheism is used to consolidate the various ideas that ”God” is within (“God” as metaphor for ‘universe, nature, being, consciousness, ‘higher power’, etc..&#8217, which typically fall under the concepts of panentheism or pantheism.

And I went: Aha! Pantheism. My favourite flavour of theism No sarcasm. It really is.

Here's where I noticed middle ground idea . Strong atheism -> weak atheism -> agnosticism and "agnosticism, leans to entheism" to (entheism). The order of poll options very much implies a gradient flowing from butch atheist to sissy atheist to I dunno, etc, etc.

While you can be a very positive atheist, theist or entheist and be a pure agnost at the same time.



Easily missed

So, now we come full circle and we are back at Ziggy dismissing himself with wasting effort, my time, goodwill, i-ink and yes, your time .

Actually, I never understood how theism and atheism are gradiental.

If one is certain, that's gnostic. If one is prone to believing one is more likely to become a theist. I don't see how you can be mostly atheist for instance. As I see it believing is an active process. You either engage in it, or you don't. But this is entirely subjective due to my lack of understanding about it. I am making no claims here about the truth of it.

Zealousness I can see as gradient.

^If you split it up to two (or more) factors, then it would seem you aim for some sort of negative/positive factor being there along with the more ambiguous one... For example:
"zealous (en)theist"= neutral X negative= negative

"zealous atheist"= neutral X positive (or neutral)= neutral

(the above are just examples, of course, not arguing you ascribe these qualities in the exact paradigm to the factors mentioned).

While a number of people who posted here (and myself too) think that any view that one knows if a god exists or not is (from a crucial standpoint) equally problematic, due to there being no actual way to establish this as a knowledge. Keep in mind that the OP already mentions that this is not a question about specific deities (eg christian, muslim and so on) but any deity existing or not. This does not even really have to touch upon that deity ever being sensed by humans, or if sensed in any way related to them teleologically.
The poll is about the belief in a god existing, not anything more specific.

Regarding your categories for atheism, i do not see them as ones which should over-ride any other categorization that is adequately described.

Finally, in regards to your notes about agnosticism, any conviction (no matter how evident, while still conscious) is a belief as long as the person holding it is able to either consciously or unconsciously 'sense' the distinction between a belief and a knowledge (and most humans obviously can, including-i suspect- all of us here).

PS: Technically the term "entheism" was not such a good choice, although it was made entirely clear on the poll what it meant. It just means "theism", and i wrote that instead of "theism" because i dislike the latter term due to its inanity in the original language of the main part of the term itself (theos). Entheism was meant as "having a god"/having the belief in a god. Pantheism is not the same, and neither is PanEntheism, the latter being about "en" as meaning "inside of god" and not "inside of the belief in god". PanEntheism is the belief that all are inside a god, which is one of the possibilities that exist if a god does exist. It allows for everything else to be a subgroup of God. Itself very distinct as an idea from the general belief in a god existing or not.
Pantheism, on the other hand, is the belief that god=everything, so everything else is not inside god, but is god in its totality.

 

[Borachio]

I quite like the idea of God as a pantheistic hologram. So you get the complete God in every little bit of reality.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Other advantages of pantheism:

No: And lo! God spoketh to Bob and said to Bob thou shalth parteth thy hair in 3 different sections.

Also, if God is everything, I am you. So it actually promotes empathy by definition.

No sillyness to please this God. Only way is to try to improve the pan.

As I said, my favourite theo.