Belief systems poll

[Kyriakos]

This is a poll about belief systems, not particular to the actual religions or more general types of spirituality, but only categorising one's beliefs in regards to the atheism, agnosticism or entheism they have.

The question of the poll is:

Which of the following is closer to your belief system?

Options are:

1) (strong atheism) I am almost positive, or entirely positive, that there is no god.
2) (weak atheism) I heavily lean towards the belief there is no god, without being positive about it in any considerable degree.
3) (agnosticism, leaning towards atheism) I cannot say if a god exists or not, but tend to think a god does not exist.
4) (agnosticism, pure) I don't know if a god exists and have no leaning either way.
5) (agnosticism, leaning towards entheism) I cannot say if a god exists or not, but tend to think a god may exist.
6) (entheism) I am almost positive, or entirely positive, that there is a god.
7) (more variable) I have no set position, but do think of this issue from time to time or more often.
8) (other) I found that Titan you buried. Still works.

I voted for 4 (pure agnosticism)

 

[LamaGT]

I tend to think that there exists no god, certainly not one that influences our day-to-day lives beyond the basic rules of the universe. So you could say weak atheism I guess.

 

[galdre]

voted agnosticism pure, but of course the answer depends on what you mean be god. Most people, when asking that question, are really referring to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, which I know does not exist.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[Kyriakos]

voted agnosticism pure, but of course the answer depends on what you mean be god. Most people, when asking that question, are really referring to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, which I know does not exist.

In the OP i mention that this is not about particularities of religions, but the idea of a god. If this was merely about christian/muslim etc or oriental gods then i would have voted the second option

It is about the idea of a god, no matter what type of god it is.

 

[Synobun]

I picked variable for a various number of reasons.

1) There is no evidence to support either argument. There is no evidence to suggest there is no higher being and there is no evidence to suggest there is. Any evidence for the denial could be seen as an intentional act by a higher being while any evidence for the belief could be seen as a mental disorder or wishful thinking.

2) A conviction on either spectrum, in my eyes, is equally foolish as one another. You are no more enlightened for denying the existence of a higher being than you are for believing in the existence of a higher being.

3) Due to my own conflicts with the issue of mortality and consciousness, I find myself hoping there is a higher being and that, to a certain extent, this higher being offers an after life to those who wish it (thus bringing our reasonable expectations of free will into the picture).

4) It really shouldn't matter in the bigger picture. Even with my views on consciousness, I still think the existence of a higher being should not be debated as heavily as it is and, most definitely, there should be no religion or anti-religion (really, atheism gatherings?). I'm against indoctrination in general and religion is probably the largest culprit besides nationalism this world has ever dealt with and I find it unreasonable to dismiss it because there are good people who are religious. The existence of a higher being should be irrelevant to our Earthly affairs as, in the bigger picture, it changes nothing about the real situation: the fact that we are alive right now, on this planet, and that our responsibilities rest solely on this land and our kin. I cannot fathom a single justifiable argument that one must dedicate their lives in the name of a higher being just to be on its good side. It's typical of human behaviour and personally I would hope that a higher being would be above that.

5) Assuming a higher being does exist, the likelihood of this higher being being anything like a religious perspective from this planet is laughably low as we are young both astronomically and as a species. It is a near statistical certainty that intelligent life existed before us to a certain extent. A higher being that has been around since the dawn of existence (which is a baffling concept in itself to comprehend as it leaves us with the exact same dilemma as the Big Bang) would have no need, no desire, and no intention of screwing over countless lives and randomly spawning a line of gospels in order to acquire unwavering loyalty. If such a higher being exists, it clearly does not deserve the loyalty it demands and getting into its good boy club should probably be pretty low on your list of to-dos.

6) We know close to nothing about how reality actually works and what's actually possible. It's common to hear "that's not possible" from those who are educated in the sciences and I find it naive since only 500 years ago what they are taking for granted was also seen as not possible. We are an incredibly young species and to expect a solid grasp on the functionality of reality already is silly. With that said, humans have a general expectation that a higher being is a being that would meddle with the affairs of his "creations". Such a theory reminds me of little boys who create ant colonies only to pour water into the tunnels for a laugh. It is not becoming of a higher being and brings me back to points 4 and 5. Regardless, the likelihood of a meddling higher being is low as well. It is just as likely that a higher being would influence nothing about any of our affairs. It is just as likely that there isn't only one higher being but multiple higher beings. It is just as likely that the higher being is the universe itself and not a singular entity. In which case, it could be argued that every universe currently theorized about has their own special higher being that functions differently from one another. For all intents and purposes, we could very well be the bacteria on the skin of another being just like there is bacteria on our own skin.

I apologize for the length, but it was nice to finally put that on 'paper'.

 

[timtofly]

voted agnosticism pure, but of course the answer depends on what you mean be god. Most people, when asking that question, are really referring to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, which I know does not exist.

The term entheism should have explained that one.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I picked variable for a various number of reasons.

1) There is no evidence to support either argument. There is no evidence to suggest there is no higher being and there is no evidence to suggest there is. Any evidence for the denial could be seen as an intentional act by a higher being while any evidence for the belief could be seen as a mental disorder or wishful thinking.

2) A conviction on either spectrum, in my eyes, is equally foolish as one another. You are no more enlightened for denying the existence of a higher being than you are for believing in the existence of a higher being.

Is it equally foolish to be convinced that lizard people run the world than to be convinced they don't?
If you really think about it, there is nothing you know. Nothing. Hence convictions of any kind are foolish?

 

[Kyriakos]

Is it equally foolish to be convinced that lizard people run the world than to be convinced they don't?

Currently, no. But if there was a 2K year-old continuous belief that lizardmen run the world, then it might be analogous to how many people view strong atheism as being on the same footing (in regards to bias or dogma) as entheism.

Variations obviously exist, but in the end you cannot know for sure even if lizardpeople rule the humans. You can suppose that it is highly unlikely they exist (at least here) and also that they do rule us, but that is not the same as "knowing".

If you really think about it, there is nothing you know. Nothing. Hence convictions of any kind are foolish?

A question of belief, which is why the poll is about beliefs and not knowledge (even up to the belief one 'knows').

 

[Synobun]

Is it equally foolish to be convinced that lizard people run the world than to be convinced they don't?

Any type of conviction without a shred of evidence is foolish, yes. While there's no evidence to support the claim, there is also no evidence to directly counter it. There is a burden of proof on the individual making the original claim, but that doesn't mean the opposing side is automatically right.

If you really think about it, there is nothing you know. Nothing. Hence convictions of any kind are foolish?

Yes. There is no 100% guarantee that you are correct about anything. The best you can do is base an opinion on the evidence and experiences you are presented with, but ultimately even the most validated concept in our history has the slight chance of being wrong in some way. We must be capable of adapting to such a change in our perceptions and beliefs.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"No good reason to assume so" is pretty good evidence methinks, and you didn't answer my first question but rephrased it. Or did you?

 

[Synobun]

"No good reason to assume so" is pretty good evidence methinks.

"No good reason to assume not so" is good evidence in support of their existence, then.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In response to the issue of convictions in general - maybe we need to understand a conviction as settling with an assumption rather than as a notion of ultimate knowledge.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

"No good reason to assume not so" is good evidence in support of their existence, then.

But I just said we have good reason to assume not so

 

[Kyriakos]

"No good reason to assume so" is pretty good evidence methinks, and you didn't answer my question but rephrased it. Or did you?

(not sure if you were replying to Synsensa)

I don't think of it as "evidence", but as a reason to believe one thing or another. There are some things you can actually know (for example the pythagorean theorem will continue to be true regardless of any people even learning it).
Other things, natural ones, are likely to be "known" due to mere repetition (eg the stages of human development, the day-night circle dependant on where you are in the planet including hyperborean white nights, species being limited to the sea if they are not amphibious or land-based, etc). They cannot be proven in the same way as a mathematical theorem is proven, cause the later exists in its own system of thought and not in 'nature'.
Various types of Idealism are focused on the issue of knowledge. Plato's "theory of Ideas" and the protoidealism of Socrates ("i only know that i know nothing") gave birth to other systems which continued this line of thought regarding the nature of knowledge.

 

[warpus]

I believe in a master plumber, who watches our pipes from above and clogs or unclogs them depending on in part the flush times of our ancestors and the positioning of the hats on our heads.

The poll is flawed so i did not vote. For example, the first two definitions are incorrect, and agnosticism deals with knowledge, not bwlief.

 

[Kyriakos]

I believe in a master plumber, who watches our pipes from above and clogs or unclogs them depending on in part the flush times of our ancestors and the positioning of the hats on our heads.

The poll is flawed so i did not vote. For example, the first two definitions are incorrect, and agnosticism deals with knowledge, not bwlief.

At least both of your paragraphs are of the same tone and aspiration

 

[El_Machinae]

So, I think that all positions actually have evidence. I just don't think that all the evidence is equal, and I think that 'evidence' for some positions more strongly fits into other world views.

For example, people who are praying can get a spiritual experience. They count this as evidence for a god. I think that psychology and naturalism gives a better explanation for this experience.

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.

 

[LegionSteve]

I voted option 2 based on the explanation in the OP.

If it had been about the god described in the bible, I would have voted option 1.

I believe in a master plumber, who watches our pipes from above and clogs or unclogs them depending on in part the flush times of our ancestors and the positioning of the hats on our heads.

Oh Lord, bless thou our pipes with thy mighty Rod of Unblocking.

 

[Kyriakos]

So, I think that all positions actually have evidence. I just don't think that all the evidence is equal, and I think that 'evidence' for some positions more strongly fits into other world views.

For example, people who are praying can get a spiritual experience. They count this as evidence for a god. I think that psychology and naturalism gives a better explanation for this experience.

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 do not think you can actually prove that (a certain) god exists either. How can you prove the christian god exists? Someone claiming he is the christian god may appear (or not) to judge you after you have died, following 200 million alien-horsemen attacking the earth. You would not really know if that is the christian god, cause you don't know if it is not some alien entity which has basic knowledge of a christian text and meant to act as if it was your god (a bit like some spanish nobles did in the new world). Also, even if you are actually dead, you won't know what life was and what "death" is. You will just be faced with something that appears vastly powerful in relation to you, but not really have evidence it is a god, let alone one mentioned on earth.