Belief systems poll

[Ziggy Stardust]

^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...

Nonsense. I never said nor implied such things. What you state cannot be distilled from my post. The only reason you'd state this is so you can criticise it.

Which I'll take as a compliment. Thanks!

I did stop reading there. Seems only fair that a wasted effort deserves a wasted effort

 

[Kyriakos]

Pantheism may not require the actual belief that any individual part of the cosmos includes some part of god, though (although it could).
For example god can be the same overall (and final) group as the entire cosmos, but god might also be something unknown despite the group he is the entirety of. So it is not clear whether a pantheism would involve any individual being in some way linked to any other individual. I suppose it could, but am not sure what prevalent views of pantheism are (up to recent times it seems that the term was - wrongly? - used to signify a belief in a pantheon, ie in a large or even unlimited number of main and lesser deities).

edit: re post #41:

Spoiler :

 

[Antilogic]

Looking at the percentages, I'm glad to see that I am in good company.

 

[strijder20]

I had no clue there were that many strong atheists on this forum.
Personally I fit in the 'weak atheism' or 'agnosticism leaning towards atheism' categories.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Personally I fit in the 'weak atheism' or 'agnosticism leaning towards atheism' categories.

I'm not trying to be arse (since I am sure I will succeed) but I am genuinely puzzled about this.

How do you lean towards atheism? Do you believe a little bit in a god? Are you open to the possibility you believe in god?

 

[Borachio]

Looking at the percentages, I'm glad to see that I am in good company.

Really? Why?

Does it confirm, to you, that you're not far off the truth?

I'm genuinely interested. It doesn't seem to affect me what anyone else thinks at all, especially on this topic. Perhaps it should.

 

[Antilogic]

Really? Why?

Does it confirm, to you, that you're not far off the truth?

I'm genuinely interested. It doesn't seem to affect me what anyone else thinks at all.

I'm used to being in the tiny minority (especially when I was living in the Bible Belt).

Confirmation or not doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Borachio]

So, you were just unhappy being in a minority? And now you feel better?

For sure, holding a minority view might make me think harder about it. Though I wonder about all sorts of things a majority of people seem to think OK.

 

[Antilogic]

So, you were just unhappy being in a minority? And now you feel better?

For sure, holding a minority view might make me think harder about it. Though I wonder about all sorts of things a majority of people seem to think OK.

Not really unhappy and now joyous, just pleasantly surprised for once.

Definitely agree on the second part.

 

[Perfection]

God came to me in a dream and told me to be an atheist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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.

Perhaps god dispenses evidence according to one's capacity to understand and accept it.

Or turned around, the evidence for god is available to all, but we each see it differently and understand it in our own way.

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

You and ziggy are on the right track.

God came to me in a dream and told me to be an atheist.

See my reply to El Mach. Stay the course.

 

[squadbroken]

I'm an ontological nihilist, I don't even believe in my own existence

 

[Krogan Doctor]

Atheists have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by believing in God.

 

[squadbroken]

Atheists have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by believing in God.

Really? What would I gain?

 

[Krogan Doctor]

Really? What would I gain?

1. The possibility of an eternal life with Him after death
2. Possibility of deliverance from an eternal hell

if you subscribe to His laws and elect to love HIm.

 

[squadbroken]

1. The possibility of an eternal life with Him after death
2. Possibility of deliverance from an eternal hell

if you subscribe to His laws and elect to love HIm.

But I don't believe in either of those things in the first place. So from my perspective I would gain nothing.

Not to mention the absurdity of the whole "religion as car insurance" thing you're pushing.

 

[El_Machinae]

Actually, Pascal's Wager is decently reasonable, except that we cannot predict the type of god that actually exists. And, I guess we'd have 'something to lose' if we decided to follow laws that weren't to our net benefit.

 

[cardgame]

So, you were just unhappy being in a minority? And now you feel better?

For sure, holding a minority view might make me think harder about it. Though I wonder about all sorts of things a majority of people seem to think OK.

I think you should reconsider. "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." – Mark Twain

Atheists have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by believing in God.

Pascal's Wager.

 

[Krogan Doctor]

Pascal's Wager.

Unbelievers may enter hell and will definitely not enter Heaven. Believers may enter Heaven and escape hell to boot.

 

[squadbroken]

Unbelievers may enter hell and will definitely not enter Heaven. Believers may enter Heaven and escape hell to boot.

If someone doesn't believe in heaven or hell, why would they care either way?