|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2001 : 02:53:38
|
Poll Question:
When asked if you believe in God you say...
|
| Results: |
| Which god do you mean? |
 [18%] |
66 votes |
| Nothing and try to change the subject |
[5%] |
17 votes |
| No and try to explain for the umpteenth time that the burden of proof is on the claimant |
[25%] |
90 votes |
| No, I'm an agnostic and get a blank stare |
[15%] |
53 votes |
| Does my answer effect my chances at survival? |
[6%] |
21 votes |
| It's not really any of your business |
[3%] |
9 votes |
| Of course, I live with a cat |
[8%] |
27 votes |
| Yes |
[21%] |
76 votes |
|
Poll Status:
Locked »» |
Total Votes: 359 counted »» |
Last Vote:
06/28/2005 18:49:06 |
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2001 : 07:41:53 [Permalink]
|
My choice isn't there...
Yes, but I STILL haven't won the lottery yet.
(:raig |
 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 08:46:28 [Permalink]
|
The question of "What do you mean by God?" is vital. Towards some gods, it is rational to be agnostic, towards others atheist, towards still others, credulous. People have very different meanings for "god," from an all-encompassing dualistic pantheistic life-force (not unlike that of Star Wars) of certain eastern and new age religions to the impersonal god of Jeffersonian-style Deism, to the personal, benevolent, jealous and vengeful god of the Hebrews and the Calvinists, and nearly every conceivable idea in between. Some of these gods are self-contradictory and thus susceptible to deductive argumentation, others are interactive with the natural world in certain ways and are and thus susceptible to inductive (evidential) argumentation, some are both, some are neither. We must therefore pin precisely down what someone means by god before we can ascertain the arguments that pertain to that god existence.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 09:15:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Towards some gods, it is rational to be agnostic, towards others atheist, towards still others, credulous
If I read you correctly, Tergiversant, a person's god(s) has to "make sense" so that you can determine the diagnostic path to take?
(:raig |
|
|
|
gdaye
New Member
Canada
18 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 10:13:53 [Permalink]
|
I usually say "No thanks, I'm trying to quit"
Nolle Illegitimus Carborundum |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 10:48:57 [Permalink]
|
The issues I mentioned above are expounded upon at some length by philosopher Theodore Drange in his internet essay Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism. Enjoy.
p.s. This is my 100th post! Woo hoo. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 11:00:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Towards some gods, it is rational to be agnostic, towards others atheist, towards still others, credulous
If I read you correctly, Tergiversant, a person's god(s) has to "make sense" so that you can determine the diagnostic path to take?
That is but the first half of it. If the concept presented is paradoxical or otherwise nonsensical, then it is clearly rational to take an atheist position. Otherwise, one must endeavor to understand what evidential considerations flow from a coherent concept of god in order to evaluate it against the empirical evidence. This is the point at which agnosticism or theism might come into play.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 11:07:13 [Permalink]
|
While it is a noble effort to understand what is meant by "God" that is not the purpose of this poll.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 14:47:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
While it is a noble effort to understand what is meant by "God" that is not the purpose of this poll.
Oh, so now you step in to keep things on topic. But when ten million vacuum-tube-powered robots were trampling a bioethics thread, you were nowhere to be seen. 
Seriously, though, I'm prepared to argue that we cannot properly address the topic question without first defining the term God, at least for the purposes of a particular discussion. This seems to me self-evident.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 15:36:51 [Permalink]
|
I have to admit that this poll is part joke and part example of how polls are manipulative by way of the question asked and part me being fed up with the question.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 18:32:29 [Permalink]
|
Nothing anybody can say will be satisfactory for everybody. Therefore, saying nothing and changing the subject is the easy way out. Of course, if somebody is really nosy about this, I would tell them that I have my own religion which I never discuss with anybody and that I never proselytize anybody about it. I like to say that IF whatever you believe in is TRUE, then that will match my belief(s). I say that it would be blasphemous to tell any deity what is the truth about anything at all and again change the subject. Changing the subject is the only way to go. The only people that one can insult are the proselytizers themselves who do not want to let you get away from their prying minds.
ljbrs   
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 00:46:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My choice isn't there...
Yes, but I STILL haven't won the lottery yet.
(:raig
My choice wasn't there either. 
And I haven't won the lottery yet, either. So if you want to send me one dollar each, let me know and I'll give you my address.
nlm
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 00:57:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My choice isn't there...
OK, I went back and voted for that I'd try and change the subject because I take it that the person asking has a religious motive for asking and it's no use getting into a debate at that time.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 08:51:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nothing anybody can say will be satisfactory for everybody.
We disagree.
We usually answer, "YES, I AM" and then We turn them into a pillar of salt.
Everyone who has received this answer was satisfied. At least none complained that they weren't.
And it explains why there are "cow licks" up and down Market Street in San Francisco when there aren't any cows.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 09:34:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And it explains why there are "cow licks" up and down Market Street in San Francisco when there aren't any cows.
ohhhhhhh and here I was thinking it involved some bizarre sexual fetish.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 09:58:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
Towards some gods, it is rational to be agnostic, towards others atheist, towards still others, credulous
If I read you correctly, Tergiversant, a person's god(s) has to "make sense" so that you can determine the diagnostic path to take?
That is but the first half of it. If the concept presented is paradoxical or otherwise nonsensical, then it is clearly rational to take an atheist position. Otherwise, one must endeavor to understand what evidential considerations flow from a coherent concept of god in order to evaluate it against the empirical evidence. This is the point at which agnosticism or theism might come into play.
Given that it is widely claimed that creator-type gods are beyond the sensory realm, it seems that what is being done is to merely remove all the logically contradictory issues from the god-concept. In other words, so what if a concept isn't logically inconsistent, pardon the double negative, if it requires one to make assumptions (such as a universe that appears designed, whether we know what a designed universe looks like or not) that create questions that need to be answered. Is there some empirical explanatory power that the god-concept has that I'm not seeing that does not require design assumptions?
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
