• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

A little (dis)belief exercise

Which of these statements do you litterally believe in?

  • There exists at least one powerful being (=God).

    Votes: 6 20.0%
  • God is older than life.

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • God is older than the universe.

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • God has caused the universe to be.

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • God has created everything like it is now.

    Votes: 1 3.3%
  • God actively interferes in human life.

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • God can read your thoughts and feelings.

    Votes: 4 13.3%
  • Humans have a soul which lives on after death, independently from memory.

    Votes: 5 16.7%
  • This soul will be rewarded or punished after death for the human's actions.

    Votes: 3 10.0%
  • Your religion is the only true one.

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • The holy book is directly written by God and infallible.

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • None of these (you're an atheist!)

    Votes: 20 66.7%

  • Total voters
    30

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
Warning: doing this exercise can destroy, diminish, but also enhance or refine your beliefs. Nevertheless I dare you to do it. Please consider this: how weak would your beliefs be if they can be shattered by a mere text on the 'net?

Step 1: answer the poll. Please select only the things you litterally believe in. No metaphors here.
Also, you should interpret "to exist" quite narrow, as "existing independently from human convictions, ideas and faiths". This because you can say that, in a way, Little Red Riding Hood "exists", because she influences a lot of people and without her, a lot of books and plays wouldn't exist. But Little Red Riding Hood is a figment of human imagination and wouldn't exist without humans having created her and telling/writing/acting/singing about her.
On the other hand, you should interpret "God" as broad as possible. "God" represents any god, godess, gods or godesses in any number or combination. Don't leave the thing unchecked only because you don't attribute a gender to God.

Step 2 (warning here): Look at the things you didn't check. Do you sometimes claim you do believe in them? Because then you're lying. You can of course wiggle around it, with saying you believe only metaphorically, but still you're saying "I believe in..." which can be taken litterally. If you believe God can read your thoughts, He's going to know you're insincere or only repeating the Creed out of custom or habit.

Step 3 (danger here! proceed with caution): Look at the things you did check. Isn't there anything that contradicts another thing? Or itself? Or common sense? Or observation? I'm not telling you have to follow things like observation - I'm telling you you should at least think a bit about it.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
My answer to every question but the last is no, but your conclusion is wrong; I'm an agnostic.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I believe that humans have an essence of energy which they can leave behind in buildings and other places, and I believe this to be true - I feel that I KNOW it to be true - independently from any religious concepts, and it doesn't necessarily imply there is a god. But it is. So that's why I checked the "soul independent from memory" item.

I also believe some sort of energy exists in the universe, Taoists call it "the way" and Buddhists believe in this sort of thing as well without there having to be a god...but it applies to the "I believe that there is at least one powerful being"...though it may not be a being, or a creator, but an energy of life in the universe.

I also literally believe that strange things can happen which seem like interference of human energy or what, I don't know. I don't necessarily call it "god." I consider myself agnostic. It's more like the broader human consciousness, or the consciousness of life.

So this exercise helped me to clarify what I believe, though your questions didn't quite capture what I believe, per se. It didn't really change anything for me.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
Huh? Who checked "God caused the universe to be" and not "God is older"? :thinking:

@ lowtech redneck: you're right - I forgot about the agnostics. However, I see "atheist" as anyone who doesn't believe in gods - which is a bit less strict than "denying the existence of gods".
I can't honestly say "I believe that there is no god" but I'd still call myself an atheist, because I can honestly say "I don't believe in a god". I don't believe in a god like I don't believe in fairies. If someone shows me a fairy, I'm willing to correct my disbelief. Same for gods.
Are you really an agnostic, who considers the chance of a god's existence or non-existence as more or less the same (let's take it broadly, from, say, 30% chance to 70% chance of existence)? This is of course possible (I don't want to say you can't be a real agnostic), but to me it seems a quite strange option.

@ marmelade.sunrise: I actually didn't expect most of the people experience shocking changes. A bit of refining, maybe some more sharply defined beliefs, perhaps nothing at all if you're quite confident already. I'm not really out to shock anybody, but I did include the warning against things like "how dare you challenge my beliefs" stances.
 

ThatsWhatHeSaid

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
7,263
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
I checked atheist, and only atheist, even though I could be classified as a monist too. But . . . meh. This is boring.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
InGodWeTrust.jpg
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I can probably be desribed as a theist, but I don't think God can be described as a powerful being.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
An atheist is someone without a (belief in) god.

And technically, just about everyone is an agnostic, so why emphasize one over the other? I tend to view the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' as value judgements in terms of common usage; those identifying as atheist tend to be either hostile to religion or at least view atheism as a positive trait relative to theism (and many simply view it as the best perspective for themselves, which I have absolutely no problem with). Those identifying as agnostics tend to be some combination of nonjudgemental regarding the moral or intellectual capacity of atheists and theists, completely disinterested in the philosophical implications of the question, or lack faith by default rather than by choice. I consider myself among the latter, and tend to feel as alienated from outspoken atheists as I do from outspoken religionists. In short, I and many other agnostics do not wish to to identify with a broad label that is commonly associatted with a much narrower social movement that actively seeks to increase its numbers.
 

lowtech redneck

New member
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
3,711
MBTI Type
INTP
@ lowtech redneck: you're right - I forgot about the agnostics. However, I see "atheist" as anyone who doesn't believe in gods - which is a bit less strict than "denying the existence of gods".
I can't honestly say "I believe that there is no god" but I'd still call myself an atheist, because I can honestly say "I don't believe in a god". I don't believe in a god like I don't believe in fairies. If someone shows me a fairy, I'm willing to correct my disbelief. Same for gods.
Are you really an agnostic, who considers the chance of a god's existence or non-existence as more or less the same (let's take it broadly, from, say, 30% chance to 70% chance of existence)? This is of course possible (I don't want to say you can't be a real agnostic), but to me it seems a quite strange option.

I think its far more likely than not that there is no supernatural aspect to the universe; I also find the notion of no consciousness after death and no free will (I don't much care about the whole 'purpose' thing that many people seek) to be extremely depressing, so I choose to hope otherwise (though I would be unwilling to embrace organized religion even if I was able to). For more perspective on my viewpoint, see my reply to niccodemus.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
About atheists and agnostics: I'm using the same definition as Richard Dawkins does (and I guess nobody will call him an agnostic): he puts people on a continuous scale from a 100% theist to an 100% atheist. You've got (with all possibilities between):
1)100% theist - who not only believes, but fully knows there exists a god.
2)Someone who puts the chance of god's existence slightly below 100% but still very high: this one is, for all practical purposes, a theist.
3)Chance of god's existence higher than 50% but significantly below 100% - an agnostic with theistic tendency
4) 50%-50% - a pure agnostic
5) Lower than 50% but significantly higher than 0% - an agnostic with atheistic tendency
6) Close to 0% - for all practical purposes an atheist
7) Exactly 0% - someone who knows for sure there is no god, just like the 100% theist knows for sure there is one.

He puts both group 6 and group 7 in the atheist category, and that's what I did too. I'm a group 6 one.

If I understand it correctly, I think Lowtech Redneck uses another criterium as well. He calls "atheists" the ones who try to spread atheism and "agnosts" the ones who would rather keep on the sidelines. And I get where that comes from, because, indeed, the ones who call themselves atheist usually are very outspoken about that. I don't know whether I would be an atheist or an agnost in this aspect. I don't really want to deconvert anybody. However, I like to discuss it very much. Belief intrigues me. I like to discuss about beliefs, where they come from, why they are there, why would you believe in a god and why don't I believe in a god any more... I find that very interesting and I like to discuss theories. So maybe the practical effect is more that of an atheist in Lowtech Redneck's sense; even while I don't actively seek to deconvert.
 

Sunny Ghost

New member
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
2,396
I believe that humans have an essence of energy which they can leave behind in buildings and other places, and I believe this to be true - I feel that I KNOW it to be true - independently from any religious concepts, and it doesn't necessarily imply there is a god. But it is. So that's why I checked the "soul independent from memory" item.

I also believe some sort of energy exists in the universe, Taoists call it "the way" and Buddhists believe in this sort of thing as well without there having to be a god...but it applies to the "I believe that there is at least one powerful being"...though it may not be a being, or a creator, but an energy of life in the universe.

I also literally believe that strange things can happen which seem like interference of human energy or what, I don't know. I don't necessarily call it "god." I consider myself agnostic. It's more like the broader human consciousness, or the consciousness of life.

So this exercise helped me to clarify what I believe, though your questions didn't quite capture what I believe, per se. It didn't really change anything for me.

I have similar views to marm.

I believe there is something... not necessarily an all powerful being we call God, but rather some sort of life force or energy. I very much enjoy the Hindu perspective on this: the Nirguna Brahman. The Nirguna Brahman is infinite, without attributes, unexplainable. All the other gods, Shiva, Brahma, etc. are Saguna Brahmans, or rather God's with attributes. These Saguna Brahmans exist to help the individual find something more relatable... closer to being tangible... and to make it easier for humans to find peace and spirituality. But the bigger picture is to eventually look past these attributes and see the Nirguna Brahman, the unexplainable and infinite.

I personally find it miraculous when I think about the intricacy of the human body or the world we live in. I find it unfathomable that it's all completely random. However, I don't believe in divine intervention. I find reincarnation and karma to be of great possibility, along with the infinite soul. How this soul came to be, I don't know... but I believe in it. I believe this is the reason I'm so greatly interested in dreams, lucid dreaming and out of body experiences.

"Down through the centuries the notion that life is rounded in a dream
has been a pervasive theme of philosophers and poets.
So doesn't it make sense that death, too, would be wrapped in dream?
That after death, your conscious life would continue,
in what might be called a dream body?
It would be the same dream body you experience in your everyday dream life,
except that in the post-mortal state - you could never again wake up.
Never again return to your physical body." -the flashbulb, "Kirlian voyager."

Song lyrics, but I find them fitting to explain how I came to believe in the great possibility of a soul.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
I believe this exercise is only beneficial to those who don't know what they believe. Those who know what they believe are not going to be moved by a consensus of answers. Those who don't know what they believe don't know themselves and are probably not prone to considering things like this. The only group of those who don't know what they believe that will enjoy this exercise is those who like to argue either side of the question. But then I'm feeling cynical today.
 

xisnotx

Permabanned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
2,144
And technically, just about everyone is an agnostic, so why emphasize one over the other? I tend to view the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' as value judgements in terms of common usage; those identifying as atheist tend to be either hostile to religion or at least view atheism as a positive trait relative to theism (and many simply view it as the best perspective for themselves, which I have absolutely no problem with). Those identifying as agnostics tend to be some combination of nonjudgemental regarding the moral or intellectual capacity of atheists and theists, completely disinterested in the philosophical implications of the question, or lack faith by default rather than by choice. I consider myself among the latter, and tend to feel as alienated from outspoken atheists as I do from outspoken religionists. In short, I and many other agnostics do not wish to to identify with a broad label that is commonly associatted with a much narrower social movement that actively seeks to increase its numbers.
So basically, philosophically, you're an atheist..that is you are not a theist (someone who believes in god). Sure, you're agnostic about your atheism (most atheists are) but when it comes right down to the issue of "Do you believe in god?" Your answer is anything but "Yes".
Practically, in everyday life, you go by agnostic simply because the term atheism is misunderstood by many and carries negative connotations in society.
Would you agree that under some definitions of atheism you're an atheist?
Under this one?
Atheist->a/theist->ie not a theist.
Theist-> someone who believes in a god.
In my mind anyone who doesn't tick "There exists at least one powerful being (=God)" when asked what your beliefs are is an atheist.

That question really only has 3 possible answers. Yes, No and (variations of) I don't know/ I reserve judgement.

Yes= Theist.
No= Atheist.
I don't know/ I reserve judgement= Atheist.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Natural and Supernatural

In the USA the word 'atheist' is perjorative. And it would not be too far to say that 'atheist' is a term of abuse.

So why call ourselves atheists? Why not call ourselves 'natural philosophers' in contradistinction to 'supernatural philosophers'?
 

KDude

New member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
8,243
I proclaim a jihad on this thread. O_O

How's that for an answer? :D Seriously. Stop concerning yourselves with the endless internet questions on the existence/non-existence of God - or assuming that anyone here doesn't ask themselves enough questions already. If you don't believe, then don't. If you do, you do. Neither one knows anything. What would be more interesting is discussing philosophical issues that might lead somewhere. This OTOH is unsolvable and a waste of time on an epic scale.

/just a mini rant.. don't mind me.
 

Tamske

Writing...
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,764
MBTI Type
ENTP
@ KDude: why I am concerning myself with such discussions? Because I find them interesting. Religion fascinates me. Not because they are somehow useful. If you don't want to waste your time on that, well, don't waste your time on that. Waste your time on watching football, or playing the piano, or reading fiction, or collecting figurines and dusting them.
All useless things, but some of them can be fun. Which ones? Depends on your taste. Maybe you think it's strange to enjoy discussions rather than watching sports, but I do.

PS. I'm still searching for the ones who checked "god caused the universe to be" and not "god is older". I always thought that the whole notion of causality needed the notion of time... I'd like to know how you fit those two together!
 

nolla

Senor Membrane
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
3,166
MBTI Type
INFP
About atheists and agnostics: I'm using the same definition as Richard Dawkins does (and I guess nobody will call him an agnostic): he puts people on a continuous scale from a 100% theist to an 100% atheist. You've got (with all possibilities between):
1)100% theist - who not only believes, but fully knows there exists a god.
2)Someone who puts the chance of god's existence slightly below 100% but still very high: this one is, for all practical purposes, a theist.
3)Chance of god's existence higher than 50% but significantly below 100% - an agnostic with theistic tendency
4) 50%-50% - a pure agnostic
5) Lower than 50% but significantly higher than 0% - an agnostic with atheistic tendency
6) Close to 0% - for all practical purposes an atheist
7) Exactly 0% - someone who knows for sure there is no god, just like the 100% theist knows for sure there is one.

You would get this scale a lot more interesting if you added another (quite essential) perspective to it. Let's say the scale you have now is the x-axis. Add y-axis about how important they think their belief and definition of the x is. In that way you will get people like myself described as well. This would have some interesting results.
 
Top