Theism/Atheism/Agnosticsm?

[eagleseven]

Where do you fall, and why? Please, keep your responses short and respectful (this means you, JB).

 

[del]

i believe in god/higher power/whatever.

i can easily reconcile the existence of the universe without god, but i can't find a reason for its existence without one. the watchmaker analogy comes closest to what i believe although it's not an exact fit.

oh, and we all go to heaven if there is one.

Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Okay, I feel the compulsion to smack the hell outta you. theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism addresstwo different issues. The options should be

gnostic theist
agnostic theist
gnostic atheist
agnostic atheist

 

[JBeukema]

i believe in god/higher power/whatever.

i can easily reconcile the existence of the universe without god, but i can't find a reason for its existence without one.

Read about M-Theory. Yours is merely an argument from ignorance: tou assume it can't happen simply because you fail to understand it.

the watchmaker analogy comes closest to what i believe although it's not an exact fit.

Watchmaker is a debunked fallacy regarding evolution and creationism

oh, and we all go to heaven if there is one.

This is a rehashing of Pascal, which rests on a false dichotomy and ignores the fact that there are many religions praising many gods- what if you worship the wrong god and/or the wrong way and still go to hell? That is why your comment if fallacious and foolish.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Agnostic, because of personal life experiences, education (school and self), and empiricism as a life philosophy. Because of those things I can't believe in a higher power for which there is no evidence and/or all evidence suggests that if there is a higher power (for which there is no evidence) its nothing like the ones described in all the holy texts and religions in the world.

JB sort of has a point, but we all get the idea even if he doesn't.

 

[JBeukema]

CMM could have answered in two words, but he decided to ramble and the OP worded things terribly. 'Agnostic' doesn't answer the real question.

 

[JBeukema]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/79118-what-if-any-religion-do-you-adhere-to.html

 

[Anguille]

I'm agnostic in my mind.
Atheist in my heart.

Existence need not justify itself by providing a reason.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Where do you fall, and why? Please, keep your responses short and respectful (this means you, JB).

I'm not sure where I fall. Where do you put someone who has a strong faith in a higher power yet totally is disgusted by every religious organization in the world?

I believe in a higher power, which many call God or Allah, but have no faith in any organized religion.

If I had to classify myself i'd be a Jewish Buddhist as I believe that worshiping any idols is wrong and that karma is a real force not to be trifled with.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

CMM could have answered in two words, but he decided to ramble and the OP worded things terribly. 'Agnostic' doesn't answer the real question.

Yeah...I rambled on. A whole 3 sentences worth. But I didn't make myself an asshole in only one.

 

[JBeukema]

Where do you fall, and why? Please, keep your responses short and respectful (this means you, JB).

I'm not sure where I fall. Where do you put someone who has a strong faith in a higher power

theist

yet totally is disgusted by every religious organization in the world?

a non-denominational theist

 

[del]

i believe in god/higher power/whatever.

i can easily reconcile the existence of the universe without god, but i can't find a reason for its existence without one.

Read about M-Theory. Yours is merely an argument from ignorance: tou assume it can't happen simply because you fail to understand it.

the watchmaker analogy comes closest to what i believe although it's not an exact fit.

Watchmaker is a debunked fallacy regarding evolution and creationism

oh, and we all go to heaven if there is one.

This is a rehashing of Pascal, which rests on a false dichotomy and ignores the fact that there are many religions praising many gods- what if you worship the wrong god and/or the wrong way and still go to hell? That is why your comment if fallacious and foolish.

here's a thought; your opinion means nothing to me.

 

[JBeukema]

It's not opinion, you twit.

You're an idiot. That's a fact.

 

[del]

It's not opinion, you twit.

You're an idiot. That's a fact.

CMM will be disappointed that it took you an extra two sentences this time.

 

[BrokenAngel]

Where do you fall, and why? Please, keep your responses short and respectful (this means you, JB).

Since this thread is overly trolled I am merely saying I believe in a higher power.

 

[Missourian]

Christian.

 

[JBeukema]

So far, we've 3 theists, 1 atheist, and 3 illiterate

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where do you fall, and why? Please, keep your responses short and respectful (this means you, JB).

none of the above. a non-believer fits better.

 

[N4mddissent]

Where do you fall, and why? Please, keep your responses short and respectful (this means you, JB).

Yes, I know you said to make things short, Eagle, but I couldn't help myself. I've been thinking about this problem for a while and your thread was like baby bear's porridge. My shortest answer is atheist and so, with my sincere apologies, my explanation/proposition...


JB made a good point earlier about the choices. I think rather than in terms of absolutes, the question should be asked from a pragmatic stance.

In other words, if an individual's behavior is directly altered by their belief and/or their perception of others' behavior, including moral and ethical questions, are significantly influenced by their belief, then they should be considered theist.

Of course, I also mean to imply the converse as a practical definition of atheist.

Careful reading will show that those who accept some vague notion of "god" (like the god of Spinoza) or some forms of deism could be considered atheists under this definition. This was intentional.

You see, I don't think philosophical or ontological musings one considers in their armchair at night are really the crux (no pun intended) of this issue as it's debated today. I think behavior is much more important. It is the actions of individuals- and questions about ethics, morals, and epistemology that are sources of conflict.

So, those who adapt some form of meta-ethical subjectivism, even if it is a universalist form, and their physical behavior is not largely influenced by consideration that a god may exist (even if they have no absolute conviction that this is the case) are going to be outwardly indistinguishable from those who hold an absolute conviction that there is no god. The converse would also be true.

Simply stated, if your actions and ethics are not influenced by belief in god, you're an atheist. If they are influenced, you're a theist. By basing the definition on behaviors, we could hopefully eliminate some of the confusion and avoid the miscommunication in this argument full of nuance and hypotheticals. And it eliminates the category, "agnostic", since it is impractical (and irrational) to vascillate between a worldview dependent on the existence of god and one in which he is unnecessary. Any worldview dependent upon belief in god would necessarily collapse if that belief was removed.

 

[eagleseven]

I was going to say, Bertrand Russell would agree with you. Then I noticed your sig

While I do not dispute what you are saying, I formed this thread using Occam's razor. I stand by my decision to use the simplest, most direct definitions of the above words.

Those being:

Theist = one who is certain there are no Gods or God
Atheist = one who is certain there are no Gods or God
Agnostic = one who does not know if there are Gods or God

As these are the most commonly accepted uses of the words, I chose these words for the poll, in order to reach the broadest range of people. The more options I offer, the more people will blow off this poll.