Do you believe in God?
If yes, which one? (The Christian God? The muslim Allah? The Jewish JHW? An ancient Greek goddess?)
If yes, do you believe in the same God as your parents? Why?

Do you believe in (a) God? single choice
	Yes
	No
Votes accepted starting: 12/24/09 06:30 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I was born and raised Catholic. I was a server also. However, I lost the faith in high school. I still have the greatest respect for Catholicism and religion in general. In class, I use religious references. I do the same when I encounter people who are religious. But I don't believe.

No. It inherently reduces the beauty and complexity and the beautiful complexity of our world, of our circumstance and hazard, to a mere superstition.

If that's not also inherently dangerous, then I don't know what is.

(Example: Bush, and the media around him, blaming Hurricane Katrina on 'God', and yet looking to the same entity for guidance through its aftermath. An absolute atrocity of intellectual crisis, and epitome of a large number of people's way of thinking.)

I say inherently to combat claims that there can be a reasonable overlap between theism and atheism, between a belief in a Grand Designer and natural science. We live in an age of moderate 'political correctness', wherein we must all bend over backwards to accommodate all beliefs, in the name of multi-culturalism, more often than not at the expense of genuine scientific (and therefore human) progression. It's very dangerous.

Can I assume that non-believers don't use phrases or words, like "god-damn" or "Jesus Christ!"?

In the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode entitled "The Survivor," there's a hilarious scene where Larry David and his wife Cheryl are renewing their vows in a Jewish ceremony. When Larry breaks the glass with his foot, he accidentally steps on the rabbi's hand, causing it to bleed. The rabbi hysterically runs out of the room, yelling "Oh my hand! It's bleeding! Jesus!"

You can if you want, the same way I could assume believers don't curse at all.

Both assumptions would be inane.

I wish I had a nickel for everytime I've used those phrases when I've hit my thumb with a hammer, stubbed my toe, saw my kid's grades, or viewed an interception or a triple play. When I die, if there is a heaven, I plan to use those references as my loophole to get in.

They'll send you to the other place. Did you forget: "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

Sorry, olivant.

No. It's not a misuse; it's an affirmation. At least, that's what I plan to argue.

Yes I believe in GOD.

Yes, I do, and always have.

I was raised Catholic, yet during college I became "smawt" and thought I was agnostic at the time. Youth and education are wasted on the young.

I had almost forgotten about the simple thing known as Faith, which transcends any argument on the contrary. And knowledge helps a lot, too. I don't have blind faith; I research now and then and find things don't conflict nearly as much as nonbelievers might think.

Merry Christmas*

*the celebration of Christ's birth; yet, not the anniversary of his birth, which scholars place around September. Nor were there "3 Wise Men" at His manger; they (number unknown, but probably well more than three) appeared a year or two after He was born. Not to mention the freaky, and scientific, coincidences pertaining to The Star of Bethlehem. It's ALL in The Book that nonbelievers refuse to read yet judge blindly anyway.

The only atheist I know personally who has read the whole bible am I.
I still don't understand the Whys I asked above.

Dare I say, not anymore. One way or another it doesn't matter if I do, or don't.

Uh-oh, I hope Capo doesn't read this.

'Religious faith' = devoid of rigour, of cogency; a big unanswered why, to which we must all bend over backward lest we 'offend' such philistinism. Meanwhile, those who don't believe are 'going to Hell', will have 'God to answer to' in the final post-death analysis. Absolute fucking crock of shit.

Many avoid the God hypothesis by substituting 'God' with 'Nature' or some sort of 'Enveloping Magical Force'; that's giving nature an agenda, an interventionist frame with which we might (and do) defend a number of things in the name of 'human nature' (what!?).

Faith is inherently blind. It doesn't refute any scientific endeavour; it stands in spite of such endeavour. Which is why it isn't progressive, which is why it's inherently anti-intellectual.

That God can or cannot be believed in ought to be enough to convince anyone of the high dubiousness of his would-be existence. (As a contrast, consider the clear meaninglessness of the following question: 'Do you believe that boys have penises and girls have vaginas?')

What happens to any reference to 'God' in The Bible if you replace it with 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'? It becomes absolute nonsense, but the logical approach as to whether or not flying spaghetti monsters exist is (and should be) the same as processes by which we answer the God question.

If I made a thread titled 'Do you believe fairies live at the bottom of your garden?' it wouldn't be taken seriously at all. Rightly so. I don't see why God should be treated any differently, when no more evidence points to his existence as it does to that of fairies.

But I guess all arguments against God are futile*, since 'faith transcends any argument on the contrary'...

* This is, in the context of this message board, probably true. I came by a useful quote recently, which makes me want to emphasise the significance of the idea of inheriting religion. Geoff's right to point out he was born and raised as a theist:

"You can't reason somebody out of a position which they did not employ reason to arrive at originally." - Jim McGinn

The problem is Capo, God can't be disproven either.

Then again, the OP's question is besides the point.

That's a fallacy and you know it. It's only a problem to the self-debilitating sceptic. Peeps make careers out of such irrationalism.

You can't disprove that there's a flying teapot orbiting the Earth, exactly halfway between Us and the Moon.

You can't disprove ghosts, fairies at the bottom of the garden, tooth fairies, and all other superstitions. But that doesn't mean the 'Yes' and the 'No' weigh the same amount.

Exactly. When you claim something exists or has happened, the burden is on you to prove it, not on a skeptic to disprove it. If a religious person claims there is a God and an atheist says there isn't, the burden is on the religious person (at least if the goal is to ascertain the truth as far as is possible).

The only exception to this is when the person affirming something has already been judged to have satisfactorily proven their case--then the burden shifts to the person saying it's not true or didn't happen. For example, if someone is convicted of a crime and there were no legal flaws in the trial (admission of tainted evidence, for example), if the defendant still claims to be innocent the burden is now on them to prove they didn't commit the crime.

...Or if somebody said that they don't believe that 'boys have penises and girls have vaginas'.

Again, all of this is moot because 'faith transcends any argument on the contrary'.

In passing, what the hell does this mean, and was it meant to sound so patronisingly sweepingly cynical? "I was raised Catholic, yet during college I became 'smawt' and thought I was agnostic at the time. Youth and education are wasted on the young."

How is youth wasted on 'the young'? The young what? 'Smawt'? Was that a dig at some sort of adolescent pretentiousness that us uneducated youths can only hope to transcend with age?

FUCK. THAT.

Mick, I think you misinterpreted what I said -- I was talking about myself, not generalizing -- but it's been a long day and explanations will have to wait for now. I don't pass judgement on anyone, you should know that by now...

Capo, take it easy.

I think we've hit a nerve here with a couple Board members. Their virulent posts are way out of proportion to the posts which engendered them.

The existence of God or lack thereof is not a function of one's belief in God or lack thereof.

And I can't disprove that you're a pretentious wanker at times. The question is once again, besides the point. And you know that, so quit wanking me.

Atheism is, in spite of its own logical trappings used to differentiate itself from the "superstitious" faiths, still in all words technically a theology. One just doesn't believe in God.

I despise the religious people who claim Atheists lack morals because they refuse to believe in the supernaturalism, and I despise the idea that maybe believing in an invisible guy in the sky is necessarily an insult to intelligence or rationality.

Science and religion are two different systems of knowledge that can't replace and fulfill the needs of either. Which is why I get pissed when people talk about that bullshit Intelligent Design. Really, man tits. What's so smart about that design, Mr. God?

And I don't think Agnostics are "atheists without balls" or "the faithful without conviction." They just don't know, which is an appropriate answer on such a question.

oh i am thanks lol

youve got to stop using that word if youre going to keep using it incorrectly you cant 'wank somebody' you 'give them a wank' or 'wank them off' i have other lessons of english slang to offer if you ever need them lol

no this is like saying that those explorers who still believe the earth is flat despite all scientific evidence to suggest otherwise are still scientists are still explorers

it is ridiculous incorrect it is a fallacy once again

a belief in god in our contemporary socalled civilized and post enlightenment world is inherently antagonistic towards the intellectual development of mankind

it is also while we are at it inherently sexist which by default means it can never be fully progressive

without science without that is the scientific endeavours by which we have arrived at our understanding of the world as we know it then were just another fucked up backward primitive race

without god however we are not by definition just another fucked up backward primitive race

your argument which isnt really an argument at all is typical of the moderate bendingoverbackwards fencesitter

it would do us all good to look at the socio historical origins and development of religion itself and why there are so many different and differing and inherently exclusive religions in the first place it is obviously due to some social need

if we wish to eradicate the backward social phenomena of religions and theisms we cant simply have a fight between those who believe and those who dont believe - the crusades not withstanding lolz - then we must look at such social relations and abolish those only then can we abolish the idea of looking at some entity in the sky in order to compensate for the otherwise meaninglessness of our pitiable lives

function lack thereof virulent proportion engendered nerve

board and god capitalized lol

Capo, you need to wank yourself today buddy. Gotta relieve the stress.

you mean i need to give myself a wank lol

or wank myself off lol