Are you...

[Ilmater]

Originally posted by: jndietz
I should have added the fourth option for belief. d'oh

What you should do is define your terms correctly, and change your choices to the following:

Agnostic: Since there is no evidence proving or disproving the existence of a higher power, you believe that there MAY be a higher power. Your original definition incorrectly implies that those that are agnostic believe in a higher power, and that's DEFINITELY not true.

Atheist: They don't believe in a higher power, because there is no proof of one.

Deist: Believe in a higher power, but no specific religion. They also are usually associated with the belief that the higher power leaves us alone completely, and therefore don't believe in praying.

Belong to a specific religion: Self-explanatory

I don't really know if I'm agnostic or atheist. I'm more atheist than anything. Religion has ALWAYS been a construct to explain what we can't explain, and through the millenia, as we've explained things scientifically, we change our religious beliefs accordingly. People once believed in a god of sun that brought the sun to us each day, or a spirit of the earth that gave us rain when we were good. As we became able to explain these phenomena, we changed our religious beliefs.

The only remaining unknown is our need to explain something (the universe/all of existance) that seemingly has no beginning. Even if you believe in the big bang, we as humans feel a need to explain what gave us a big piece of mass that exploded (or, more corectly, imploded) into what we now know as planets and galaxies. I tend to believe that we'll eventually explain this and then we'll wonder why we questioned it, so I'm going to jump ahead about 2,000 years and just not believe in God now.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: drsafety
Agnostic, but I believe mankind may find evidence in the future that supports or denies the existence of god. For example, if physicists can create a grand unified theory that explains all forces in the universe, I believe that is evidence that there is not a god, because it shows mankind can understand the fundamental nature of our universe.

If physicists cannot create a grand unified theory, I think that is evidence (not proof!) that there is a higher power.

Too many people will get hung up on the concept that becasue physicists have not yet created a grand unified theory, that they cannot create such. Because nobody has yet done something does not mean that something isn't doable.

This is much like people who say stupid things like "there are things that science will never be able to explain".

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm an agnostic atheist.

A point I've harped on before and will again in this thread: AGNOSTICISM ISN'T A "THIRD ALTERNATIVE" BETWEEN THEISM AND ATHESIM. Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism or theism, therefore. The gnostic/agnostic dichotomy is orthoganal, albeit somewhat related, to the theist/atheist dichotomy. You are either a theist, or you are not. You are either a gnostic, or you are not. If you are neither a theist nor a gnostic, you are an agnostic atheist like myself.

In other words, there are two conceivable types of theists: gnostic theists, and agnostic theists. Equally, there are two conceivable types of atheists, gnostic atheists, and agnostic atheists. It is not the case that you are EITHER an atheist OR and agnostic OR a theist.

On a related note, an atheist also is not necessarily one that believes positively that god doesn't exist. Rather, an atheist is any person that does not positively believe god does exist. Please acknowledge the subtle but very real distinction between the propositions "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X." The latter does not entail the former, however it is the former proposition (where X = "God exists") that is minimally sufficient to establish atheism.

-Garth

 

[aircooled]

I voted.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Garth
I'm an agnostic atheist.

A point I've harped on before and will again in this thread: AGNOSTICISM ISN'T A "THIRD ALTERNATIVE" BETWEEN THEISM AND ATHESIM. Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive with atheism or theism, therefore. The gnostic/agnostic dichotomy is orthoganal, albeit somewhat related, to the theist/atheist dichotomy. You are either a theist, or you are not. You are either a gnostic, or you are not. If you are neither a theist nor a gnostic, you are an agnostic atheist like myself.

In other words, there are two conceivable types of theists: gnostic theists, and agnostic theists. Equally, there are two conceivable types of atheists, gnostic atheists, and agnostic atheists. It is not the case that you are EITHER an atheist OR and agnostic OR a theist.

On a related note, an atheist also is not necessarily one that believes positively that god doesn't exist. Rather, an atheist is any person that does not positively believe god does exist. Please acknowledge the subtle but very real distinction between the propositions "I do not believe X" and "I believe not-X." The latter does not entail the former, however it is the former proposition (where X = "God exists") that is minimally sufficient to establish atheism.

-Garth

Yea, what he said.

 

[rachelmb]

agnostic.

 

[jadinolf]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Your poll is flawed. The last option shouldn't have the bit about believing proof exists.

Exactly right so no vote here.

 

[dawnbug]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats
agnostic

 

[Ricemarine]

Agnostic, even though I should be buddhist.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Nontheist.

- M4H

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

Everyone has to believe in something and I believe I'll have another :beer:



...Galvanized