[SP] Wondering what SP's beliefs are

[Shiet_Happens]

PLEASE VOTE

and please don't start a debate whos view is correct, thats for that other board/place

If you don't kno the difference:

Gnostic Theist: "I believe in a God, and we can prove it."

Agnotstic Theist: "I believe in a God, but I don't think we can prove or disprove it."

Gnostic Atheist: "I don't believe in a God, and I think we can prove it."

Agnostic Atheist: "I don't believe in a God, and I don't think we can prove or disprove it."

Implicit Atheism: Basically people who havn't made up thier minds yet, like newborns.

Explicit Atheism: An active disbelief.(one of the first two atheistic beliefs)

Sorry if none of those choices suit you.

 

[Orangey]

Looks like you left explicit atheist out of the poll.

 

[miss fortune]

I'd personally prefer the choice "something"

I'm somehow inclined to beleive in things like the goddess of weather or the god of sales when the situation presses... the idea of some strict old man in the sky kind of doesn't work for me

 

[Quinlan]

I believe in Sasquatch.

 

[gromit]

I used to get so frustrated at church, wondering how people could be so certain of things that cannot be proven or observed directly.

For the poll, I put agnostic theist, because it's the closest to my beliefs. I believe in goodness, and love, and things like that, and I think they have a power of their own. I have no way of knowing if there's a God the way people think (i.e. whatever's description of an old man in the sky, for example), I have no evidence for that, but I have evidence - less tangible - of the power of love, kindness, etc. and I have experienced spiritual connections to nature, to other people, and so forth.

It's hard to describe I guess.

 

[Rail Tracer]

Agnostic, personally speaking, it doesn't have to be about god. As for which boat. I say that a religion might be real, but the same could be said that religion might not be real. But to believe that science is everything real is a far stretch when we cannot solve 100% of everything on this whole entire universe, nor be able to explore it.

It can be about other religions also. I'm agnostic in the sense that science cannot fully disprove religion on some levels while religion cannot disapprove what science has found. I mean, "science" as a whole could of been said to be fantasy when we think about it (Ex: alchemy.)

 

[Shiet_Happens]

Looks like you left explicit atheist out of the poll.

If your an explicit athiest then you have to be a gnostic or agnostic athiest

 

[BlackCat]

Agnostic theist. I'm more spiritual than religious though.

 

[Orangey]

If your an explicit athiest then you have to be a gnostic or agnostic athiest

Ah, I didn't notice the stuff in parens earlier.

 

[Jeffster]

I believe God is real, but transcends any kind of "proof" that humans could accomplish.

 

[stellar renegade]

Depends on what you mean by "proof," don't you think?

I'm going to go ahead and say "Agnostic Theist" because I'm guessing by "proof" you mean typical scientific, empirical data. A God that could be proved that way isn't even worth believing in...

EDIT: Interesting, same proportion of "Agnostic" to "Gnostic" in both Atheist and Theist.

I definitely believe there's alot of merit in the circumstantial evidence of creation, the way the Big Bang occurred, the nature of existence, etc that proves God to those who truly understand the arguments, and a God who couldn't fulfill those criteria wouldn't be worth believing in. But of course that's nothing like the type of proof I referred to before.

 

[ayoitsStepho]

I believe God is real, but transcends any kind of "proof" that humans could accomplish.

This is what I believe as well.

 

[Walking Tourist]

I believe this, too.

I believe God is real, but transcends any kind of "proof" that humans could accomplish.

 

[Quinlan]

If god came down from heaven and started smoting people with lightening bolts right in front of my eyes that would be pretty good proof, except for all I know that could just be a super powerful alien messing with us humans for the lulz.

 

[Gish]

"materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions."

Pretty much this, but I suppose it doesn't remove the possibility of a god-like entity. When it comes to that, to avoid offending anyone, I'll simply say there is a lack of evidence, and if something "exists" but is beyond our comprehension, then I have no business attempting to interact or understand it.

 

[Jeffster]

If god came down from heaven and started smoting people with lightening bolts right in front of my eyes that would be pretty good proof, except for all I know that could just be a super powerful alien messing with us humans for the lulz.

That would be pretty cool, though.

 

[Mondo]

If god came down from heaven and started smoting people with lightening bolts right in front of my eyes that would be pretty good proof, except for all I know that could just be a super powerful alien messing with us humans for the lulz.

Yea especially if it somehow gets access to our religious texts.. wonder if it could do something to satisfy all religious people?

 

[Quinlan]

Yea especially if it somehow gets access to our religious texts..

Space, the final evangelical frontier...

Missionaries in Space! They should make a TV show.

 

[Shiet_Happens]

I edited this post because I realized it may have started a debate or something, and I wanted this to be just a poll. So thanks for voting , and vote if you still havn't

 

[stellar renegade]

If god came down from heaven and started smoting people with lightening bolts right in front of my eyes that would be pretty good proof

A God like that wouldn't be worth believing in anyway...

except for all I know that could just be a super powerful alien messing with us humans for the lulz.

hah, yeah, totally... or a mass hallucination...

"materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions."

But that doesn't make sense. If that were true, how could we think about thinking or consciousness? It seems to lend to the idea of a meta-consciousness or some kind of soul.