In my entire life the Yes or No aspect in belief of a deity never played any role in my life.

I do believe there is more to this life, but only because our small pocket of order that arose allowing life to occur is simply a insignificant blip on the vast scale and majesty of the Universe outside our local galatical sphere.

If I was god I would be having too much fun creating super massive black holes anyways.

I mostly have the Sift to thank for this (and <srcsm>believe</srcsm> me, I do thank this wonderful community):
during the past year or so I've found that there is no need to believe in anything, there's no need for belief. I used to catch myself almost using the expression for a month or so, but I haven't actually used the word in reference to myself in months, and I'm very happy for that. Most of you folks will understand that hence it was my great pleasure to hear Cristopher Hitchens express his opinion on faith as the "most overrated virtue" - I couldn't agree with him more.

I honestly think (let's call it a quasi-educated guess) that there is no "creator", no higher form of sentience that started our Universe. And, if I really had to assume, I'd say it's most likely some sort of a simulation, rather than any of the fairy tales that our screwed-up minds have come up with.

Why isn't there an option for "HELL NO!!!"?

I think selecting "I don't know" is a cop out. None of us know, so we're all agnostic. The real question is whether or not you believe in the existence of a god. If you're not sure, then I'd say you're leaning more toward agnostic atheist.

I suppose the third option could be "I don't care" instead?

I dont believe in the classic God idea. I can not explain how we ended up with a universe however.

^But your second part is not needed to not believe in a God. Even believers don't know how that happen - they just guess. If you think you're an atheist, you don't have to be able to answer everything.

"Then how do you explain.."
"I don't."

I think everyone who visits this site doesn't believe in what most Atheists rally against, which is man made religions.

But that has nothing to do with the fact that the universe holds far more mysteries then we can imagine. See how the scientific preception of the basic physical laws, earth and space has fundamentally changed in one century.

Its preposterous to assume now we know all the answers.

I don't know. I also don't believe in a god.

Not a very good question , or choice of answers.

"God" fir a start is a ridiculously non descript word , for example Christian god of the bible over , some intelligent being or omnipresent thing creating everything are so vastly different.

There is No evidence ether way whether or not a "GOD" something that created everything and has omnipresence over it exists.


The intellectuality ohnist part of me would want to click , "I don't know ethor way", however for all descritoins of gods that currently exsist in all religions im aware of I would say a definite no. Allso the question dose not accommodate people who may believe in multiple gods ,

we are God.

CNN just had this poll.PZ Myers mentioned it on his blog and it ended up something like:
33% Yes     67% No     With about 30K votes

^I have a feeling reddit was the deciding factor here

The question is "Do you believe in a God [sic]?"

"I don't know" in this case does not mean "I don't know whether there is a god", it means "I don't know whether I believe there is a god". The difference is not subtle. Therefore I choose "No".

So as far as I gather for clarity, this is what I gather the responses would be for each classification:

Theist: would be a yes
Agnostic theist: would be a yes
Agnostic atheist: I don't know either way
Week atheist: no answer suitable
Strong atheist: No


Clarity on those categories would be:
Theist: Belief in at least one God, even in a Socratic way (at least one god must exist ontologically)

Agnostic theist: Belief that at least one deity exists, but that the existence of gods are unknown or inherently unknowable (one can never know the face of God)

Agnostic atheist: Does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist

Week atheist: Is akin to a child or some one who has never been exposed to the idea of a God or all powerful being. Innocent.

Strong atheist: Accept as true the proposition "gods do not exist".

Hope you find my Theist cheat sheet useful, terminology in the area is dense....always nice to have it easy to reference


As a personal bias, I would like to point out that the purely logical position is Agnostic atheist. One does not suppose anything. It is purely rational. All other things are not based in logical deduction but intuition or unverifiable claims (which some people neglect to point out).

>> ^EDD:
during the past year or so I've found that there is no need to believe in anything, there's no need for belief.


"We're never gonna win the war, (...) if belief is what we're fighting for."

http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Mayer-Belief-Live-at-Webster-Hall

GSF: I originally just wanted to do "yes/no" but I felt I ought to have the "dunno" in there too.

If you want to "rank" the definitions you put up, I would put Agnostic atheist closer to Strong Atheist than weak atheist. No one is a strong atheist in the sense that you propose, not even Dawkins is.

I think it was blankfist that said in the discussion of the CNN poll that we're all Agnostic theists or Agnostic atheists - and that's essentially what the poll is about. Not whether you technically can prove or disprove it, but what you believe.

O, I wasn't really ranking them per say, those are just how they occurred to me at the time.

I don't really buy Dawkin's being anything other than a strong atheist. Mind you, I don't mean that as pejorative or anything, nothing wrong with strong atheism. But after reading hearing him enough, you have to abandon the notion of a neutral position with him...he has an axe to grind. Strong atheism is basically the negative position of belief. In the absence of absolute truth, they are the positive and negative assertions of each other, and as a result, the only sides of the coin that can really directly attack each other. The fact that they aren't speaking the same language doesn't matter. It would be analogous to an optimist and pessimist, they aren't in the same thought universe. I think this is evident in his general pursuits and tone when addressing people of faith...and conversely people of faith towards him.

But ya, I understand the spirit of the question now, do you kinda think there is something out there, or don't you.

I would be curious to ask a more basic question then about how yall experience the world. I know I have a dualist way of seeing things much like Pascal. That knowledge and experiment tell us much of the world we live in. That helps us build buildings and make new medicines. Science and reason all give us deep insight in to the one area of understanding humans themselves are capable of, the finite. But in a realm of Gods or infinitude, man has no tools for comprehension. I can't put it more elequantly than the man himself

"For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in relation to infinity, all in relation to nothing, a central point between nothing and all and infinitely far from understanding either. The ends of things and their beginnings are impregnably concealed from him in an impenetrable secret. He is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness out of which he was drawn and the infinite in which he is engulfed."

How do yall deal with the vastest of everything? How do you pear into the deep recesses of the infinite universe and process the information? Or the problem of the infinity of God not being able to understood by man unless he is shown the door?

I "copped out" according to blankfist.

I think there's a good argument for reclassifying most agnostics as atheists.

Depending on my mood, I'm happy with applying either label to myself.

But my answer to the question of "Do you believe in some divine entity?" my answer is neither yes nor no.

I'm definitely not a believer in religious dogma, or someone who prays on a regular basis, but I do think it's possible there's some higher purpose we're supposed to be serving, and possibly some beneficent intelligence keeping score, and nudging us in the right direction from time to time.

I don't think we know enough to answer this question with any certainty, without resorting to some level of faith.

More relevant questions like "should we make laws based on religious doctrine?" or "Do you believe in a specific organized religion of any kind?" I'd answer with "no." But phrased this way, I have to say "I don't know."

^Terminologically speaking that would be an agnostic theist, netrunner. As far as I understood the question, that would of been a yes. Heheh I would actually say there are more people that are calling themselves atheists there are actually some flavor of agnostic, but maybe I roll in different social circles.

I sometimes wonder about the nature of DNA. Like, does it have a will, some underlying drive inherent to its double helix nature! Was actually thinking it would be a neat sci-fi concept. The double helix's triumph over their arch enemy the triple simi-cicles, I always hated those tri bastards!

Who cares about if people believe in God(s).

I want to know
Do you believe the world is 6000 yrs old.

That is the question that determines if your soul can be saved or not.

Don't leave home without it

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll

Etymologically, science has no claim to knowledge. For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true. Science works on the negative, where things are only ever shown to be false. Science works for establishing a working infrastructure of probable beliefs, but not casting light on truth; it deals what what it outside the box, not in it.

I love science mind you, but one always has to be clear about what one is doing when using it

great poll my atheist friend.
i am quite up-front concerning my faith,but i rarely speak about it.
so i think this a proper forum to maybe share a tidbit with you all.
i had a wonderful conversation with IamtheBlurr.he was respectful and curious so the conversation was well balanced.i shall paste my final reply to him.i will not post what he sent me (it is public) because i dont feel that proper.
in our last correspondence he had asked me a slew of questions in which i attempted to answer to the best of my ability.
here is that reply:

you dont ask the small questions do you?/grins
IATB:Why do you believe what you have faith in?
enoch:why are you here?for what purpose do you serve?what is the meaning of existence?
i am not trying to berate you with rhetoric.just giving you the scope of your question.you might have well asked me "in one sentence explain the big bang and its relation to gravity and magnetic fields".the reasons why i have faith are complicated as they are simplistic.grand as they are minute.
if i had to answer in a short,finite sentence.i would say because there is more to the universe than we can comprehend,and that we are a part of something far greater,more beautiful than our limited perceptions can comprehend.could i be wrong? of course,i have to leave that option open,to attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible leaves a wide margin for error,hence the term faith and not "Know".it is also why i do not preach,or attempt to convince others of my righteousness.the closest i can come to explaining,and i most surely will fail,is that i have a sense of something behind the veil.it is not tangible but it is.it is etheric in nature..yet it is not.everytime i have found myself at a crossroads and attempted to control my destiny i met resistance,but when i surrendered to it,i was always led to the what i most needed and wanted at the time.
is that scientific? no.
do i have any conclusive proof other than anecdotal?no.
could it possibly be something "other"? yes.
if i would say yes to this,why say i have faith? because i have to leave that option open.just because we dont understand it now,does not mean mankind will not understand the mechanics of it later,and it is quite possible there is a totally scientific reason for it.
but if thats true,why say say you have "faith" at all? just because mankind can define or explain a universal mechanism does not detract from my faith.it only strengthens it.
IATB:Regarding philosophy, do you know the definition of the word “conjecture”?
enoch:yes,and it is a trap i try to avoid.sometimes i succeed,other times i fail.it is conversations like these that help me avoid such traps.it is easy to become comfortable when everybody is saying the same thing.challenge the idea and you may find yourself with not only a new way of thinking but a much crisper outlook.trimming the fat as they say.
IATB:That is to say, why do you believe what you believe?
Do you know of any beliefs that you hold which do not have supportive conclusive evidence?
enoch:just that we are a triune.mind=proven.we have one.body=proven.we have that also.spirit=unproven and no discernable test to date to even measure for one.hence the term "faith".
IATB:When I say, I don't believe that there is life on Mars, what do you think I am saying?
A) There is no life on Mars
B) I don't believe there is life on Mars.
C) Both of the above
enoch: B there has been no proof nor disproof of life on mars.there is conjecture based on certain enviromental conditions that may have,or has,supported life.but no actual proof as of yet.
IATB:What is a greater strength?
A) The ability to share ideas.
B) The ability to discern the truth of a shared idea.
enoch: this is a trick question for the answer is both.because they speak of a polarized polemic.one speaks of arbitrary sharing=good.
the other speaks of a personal ability to dissect and discern the shared idea.
both are good and have strengths.i think if you made A)the ability to share ideas without rebuttal or discussion.would have been a better statement for me to judge their strengths.

on a final note.understand that the way i perceive the universe and hence my faith would have had me burned at the stake for heresy a few hundred years ago.when i use the term "god" i am not referring to a masculine entity that resides outside space and time and watches over us as if we were a colony of ants.to dispense his wisdom and fickle judgment as a school yard bully distributes marbles.i use the term as a noun.my interpretation of god is subjective and is not based on any text or scripture.i adhere to no dogma at all.
to put things in their simplest form.the universe and everything within it..is god.
i am running out of time my friend so i will have to bring this to a close.
i hope i answered your questions satisfactorily and i hope the conversations continue.feel free to ask me more questions.i hope your car is coming along nicely.
till the next time..namaste.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Science works for establishing a working infrastructure of probable beliefs, but not casting light on truth; it deals what what it outside the box, not in it.


Ok, so you agree that science may not be able to tell you how old a box is exactly (to the millisecond)... but you at least agree science can tell you the box is DEFINITELY older then 6000 years.

Science may not be able to chart every nuance of how the animals came to exist the way they do today, but at least you agree that science can rule out all the existing animals could not have possibly come from a single pair, let alone the thousands and thousands of species could never have fit on a boat.

Science may not be able to tell you exactly what the oceans looked like thousands of years ago, but it can rule out magic water appeared out of nowhere enough to cover all the land masses on Earth.

Unfortunately, science does shed light on the formation of fossils, the grand canyon, magnetic stratification in rock, planetary orbits... I'm afraid you don't really like science, you just tell yourself that so you feel better.

Wasn't really talking to you joe, and given your tone, I am not very interested either.

EDD, the concepts of belief and faith are not the exclusive domain of the theism. Belief and faith can also be based on evidence. You believe that the part of the Earth where you live will rotate towards the sun in the morning, right? You have faith that your friends and loved ones will be there for you when you need them, yes? These are things that cannot be proven, but are very highly probably based on the evidence of your own experience. No need to cross those words out of your dictionary just because they are over-used by religious folks.

If Zeus apparated tomorrow and shot some lightning bolts, all agnostics would be instantly converted to religion, but as of right now, none of them believe in Zeus. If you can't say 'yes, I believe in God', then you don't believe in God, regardless of how open you might be to the concept?

PS: I'm not sure why I hit the submit button on this comment. It doesn't seem an important enough point to be enunciated. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter how agnostics fit their beliefs into this yes/no dichotomy? Prolly not. Oh well.

^That's true, if Zeus stepped down to us lightning bolt in hand and everything, I would certainly accept it after some testing. I can't imagine any atheist that wouldn't, since most are not based on faith, but on evidence - and a real live Zeus would be one mother of an evidence.

Agnostics don't believe there is a God -> choose no. (Or that would be my way of thinking anyway.) The poll is about the active belief, not the active disbelief. (Are you an atheist? would be that question.)

>> ^gwiz665: No one is a strong atheist in the sense that you propose, not even Dawkins is.

I submit myself as counter example. The non-cognitivist argument allows for strong atheism.

Since the word "God" is meaningless, the assertion "a god exists" is, not merely probably, but necessarily, false.

>> ^EndAll:
we are God.


I am like God and God like me. I am as large as God. He is as small as I. He cannot above me, nor I beneath him be. -Selesius

Naturalistic Pantheist here.

I decided a few weeks ago to start worshipping the Greek gods of Olympus. It's worked quite well so far. My life hasn't changed at all, but I never expected Zeus to give a shit about me, anyway.

I also worship Dr. Manhattan, because his dick is big and blue, like Papa Smurf on steroids.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
If Zeus apparated tomorrow and shot some lightning bolts, all agnostics would be instantly converted to religion, but as of right now, none of them believe in Zeus. If you can't say 'yes, I believe in God', then you don't believe in God, regardless of how open you might be to the concept?

If some entity appeared that matched the exact descriptions of the mythological Zeus, I would suspect mortal shenanigans, not drop to my knees and worship Zeus as divine.

If I found that there were coded mathematical messages deep in the digits of pi (as there were in the novel Contact), I would probably start feeling certain that the universe was indeed manufactured by an intelligence who wants us to know about it's existence.

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter how agnostics fit their beliefs into this yes/no dichotomy? Prolly not. Oh well.

I agree -- I don't even think I like the "theist" label GeeSussFreeK slapped on me is right. I often think too much is made about deism vs. theism. If I write a really good program, it can corral people into interacting with it in ways I approve of without me personally having to watch over every user of it. Same with a deist God.

Usually I'm fully against the idea of theism, mostly on the basis that I think communication/negotiation with the creating power of the universe isn't possible, or at least would require big fancy machines.

Of course I believe in God as a Christian.

I've always said no several years back when I quit Mormonism, but one of my buddies at college said once that even if there was a god, he wouldn't worship him - just look at all the bullshit that happens to good people. I could never worship a god like that.

So I'm gonna roll with that "I'd give him the finger even if he WERE real."

Not believing in a god is, in my opinion, not the same as believing there is no god. An agnostic would be someone who doesn't actively believe in a god, but is willing to accept the notion that there might be one and would probably convert to believing if presented sufficient evidence. Thus the second option of the poll covers both agnostics and atheists, and the "don't know" option would apply to someone who simply doesn't know what to believe.

Voting for this poll ended with the majority of users voting No.

I think this was about the predictable result. There were a bit more believers than I actually thought, but that only means that we're spreading our wings - it's a good thing.

Yes - 15 votes - 17 %
No - 64 votes - 74 %
Don't know - 8 votes - 9 %