Poll - Belief in God

[lVloonLite]

LOL, I don't think they would considering the high regard that she holRAB for them.

Nice editing job? Would you like me to post the entire text? Would you read it?


How about "an arrogant man"? Because HE hasn't found any proof, then it must be beyond man's ability to find. What a copout. I couldn't find my keys a few weeks back; I guess they were beyond man's ability to find. BS!!!!
Faith is the antithesis of demanding proof. You can't have both. Huxley cops out by saying that proof is beyond man's capability of knowing, but it just might be there...somewhere.

[EightMoreTimes]

As all of my polls so far have been this poll is purely for the purpose of own research. When I have finished with my research I will usually say so. But feel free to continue to respond as well as post comments.

It is unlikely that I will respond to comments or questions regarding the subject of the poll as this is not the place for a debate. Regardless feel free to still make comments.

As a side note: I do not respond to my own poll and thus my answer is not included in the results.

Another note: This poll does not only refer to the Christian God. This poll is asking if you believe in any God of any religion.

[Veemon]

OK, here's my take on it. Ther world is broken down into two groups, those who believe without proof and therefore posess "faith" and those who require proof and therefore lack "faith". Agnostics sit on the fence because they don't know which camp they fall in. Whether or not there is concrete proof of God's existance is really irrelevent. It's a question of "faith" vs proof.
Does that help explain my position on agnosticism any better?

[taerakwon]

I agree with your first statement, but not the rest. A "Believer" doesn't need proof of God's existence; he has faith. An Agnostic hedges his bet by saying that he'd believe IF he had proof, but he has no proof today, so he's unsure....but he's keeping his options open for the future.
That's a fencesitter to me. Artheists, on the otherhand, say that there is NO proof, so God doesn't exist. That is a firm stance based on pure logic. No equivocation. It is an intellectually honest assessment,and wrong of course, IMO.


No, it's like a hung jury. They are unable to come to a decision, based on the case as presented, so they "punt" and let others make the call.
It reminRAB me of a potential Japanese customer that I had to deal with years ago. Whenever it came time for him to make a decision, he wanted "more data". He suffered from analysis paralysis.
He knew that if he waited long enough, someone else would make the decision.

[Missleo]

With the combined results of aim users, this threaRAB responses, and another poll in the religion forum... this poll has been concluded.

Thanks to those who responded.

[guitar*rules]

Just for the record, there is nothing contradictory about one being an agnostic and being an atheist/theist. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that half the amount of people would label themselves at least a weak agnostic after considering the definitions and the original intention of the term by Huxley. The key thing to notice is that atheism/theism specifically refers to belief, while agnosticism is concerned with knowledge and knowing.

[Red Rooster]

Based on my understanding, agnosticism isn't concerned with searching for data or proof or an answer. Rather, an agnostic simply recognizes that such data or evidence does not exist in the physical realm, and is therefore unknowable without subjective faith. An agnostic isn't 'waiting for someone else to make the call,' but rather understanRAB that no one CAN make the call.

[KK3vin]

1.)please explain how you can't prove a negative? What does that mean?
2.)Absence of evidence, logically, is plenty of basis to convict that something doesn't exist. So as per your second statement, logic has a lot to do with it.

Your opinion is your opinion, but don't try to shove it down peoples' throats as fact, because they are what they are, opinions.

[Sic]

from what you say here, agnostics do have a belief: they believe that the evidence for or against God's existence doesnt exist. but what classification is there for people belief that evidence for or against the existence of God DOES exist? this class, like agnostics, concedes that they do not know whether God exists or not, but they do not settle into a decision of limbo, but rather seek the information that will allow them to make a decision of either theism or atheism. would they be considered agnostics as well?

[jrg]

Atheism and belief are ILLOGICAL. That is UNDENIABLE.

If one cannot prove that God does/doesn't exist, it is ILLOGICAL to unequivocally state that God does/doesn't exist. That is pretty clear.

I think your view that agnostics are really just Christians that won't commit and are trying to get in through the back door is rather unfounded, and based purely in your belief that you are right/superior, and not in logic.

Agnostics are non-believers that are secure in their belief that God doesn't exist given the lack of evidence, and yet, they are aware that they can never prove God doesn't exist, and therefore LOGICALLY, they don't make claims to that effect.

As for the jury analogy, it would seem to me it would be better presented as such -

Atheist/Believer - We can't prove you're guilty, certainly not beyond all reasonable doubt, but there is some evidence to suggest your guilt. We'll fill in the blanks with faith. Guilty.

Agnostic - There is evidence to suggest you're guilty, but I can't prove my case beyond a reasonable doubt. Acquit.

Waxy