|
Religiosity poll
|
|
|
|
|
| Salvo | Date: Saturday, 30.11.2013, 14:58 | Message # 1 |
 Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Italy
Messages: 1400
Status: Offline
| ("updated" version of the old poll)
I had a discussion with my friends about this, and I decided to start this poll, just to get an idea 
Definitions:
- theism - having a belief in a deity/god that does or has intervened in the universe
- deism - having a belief in a deity/god that created the universe but has not intervened in it
- atheism - lacking a belief in a deity/god
- religion - a framework of tenets and traditions related to supernatural and/or spiritual beliefs
- supernatural - elements of existence beyond those that are known to exist in nature (e.g. souls, reincarnation, afterlife, incorporeal consciousness, ghosts, extraterrestrial visitations)
Examples of...
...theistic religions - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism
...atheistic religions - Buddhism, Scientology, Raëlism, many aboriginal religions
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770 GPU: ASUS Radeon R9 270 RAM: 8 GBs
(still don't know why everyone is doing this...)
Edited by Salvo - Saturday, 30.11.2013, 15:00 |
| |
| |
| Cookiesofamerica | Date: Friday, 20.02.2015, 19:21 | Message # 31 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
United States
Messages: 4
Status: Offline
| I'm a deist as well, God to me merely just creates universes like clocks. Setting the time and letting it be on its own devices. Universes created through an accidental or eternal method seem to make an equal amount of assumptions of a creator to me.
|
| |
| |
| SolarLiner | Date: Friday, 20.02.2015, 22:39 | Message # 32 |
 Explorer
Group: Users
France
Messages: 267
Status: Offline
| This post made me search for all the types of beliefs, and I am somewhat relieved that I'm not the only one who thinks something is behind all the physics ^^
To me, something created physics, and then let it off to see how it would turn out. 13 billion years laters, here we are discussing it :P Although I stay very scientific about it. If someone proves this isn't what happened, then I'll think about something else 
custom landing page to share: http://bit.ly/spaceengine
|
| |
| |
| TesseracT | Date: Friday, 20.02.2015, 22:45 | Message # 33 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
Spain
Messages: 6
Status: Offline
| Personally, I disagree that the best description of 'atheist' is 'lacking a belief in a deity/god', which seems to be an old dictionary definition written when dictionaries were mostly composed and edited by theists who were unable to define the word without a subconscious negative bias.
I prefer a more modern view; a definition controlled by atheists themselves rather than one dictated to by their deluded detractors:
'atheist' is 'the label a religious person gives to you when you reject their explanation of how the universe works'.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Friday, 20.02.2015, 23:00 | Message # 34 |
 Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote TesseracT (  ) I disagree that the best description of 'atheist' is 'lacking a belief in a deity/god'
But it's literally what the word means.
Quote TesseracT ( ) I prefer a more modern view; a definition controlled by atheists themselves rather than one dictated to by their deluded detractors:
Every atheist I've ever heard has defined the word exactly as it is written in the OP. I actually wrote all of those definitions myself, and I'm an atheist, so your position that an atheist would not use that definition is wrong.
Most theists define atheism as being a belief that there are no deities, rather than a simple lack of belief in deities as atheists and anyone with any linguistic sense would define it.
Quote SolarLiner ( ) If someone proves this isn't what happened, then I'll think about something else
The reasonable (and scientific) thing to do is to keep an open mind and abstain from drawing conclusions UNTIL there is supporting evidence, not assume that something is true until evidence directly contradicts your assumption.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
Edited by HarbingerDawn - Friday, 20.02.2015, 23:02 |
| |
| |
| SolarLiner | Date: Friday, 20.02.2015, 23:55 | Message # 35 |
|
Explorer
Group: Users
France
Messages: 267
Status: Offline
| Quote HarbingerDawn ( ) The reasonable (and scientific) thing to do is to keep an open mind and abstain from drawing conclusions UNTIL there is supporting evidence, not assume that something is true until evidence directly contradicts your assumption.
Pretty much what I wanted to say. Until there is supporting evidence that this is not how it works, my theory is that something or someone did something to create it. I personally like to think of it as the "whoops" moment of the deity that made the Big Bang happen ^^
custom landing page to share: http://bit.ly/spaceengine
|
| |
| |
| TesseracT | Date: Saturday, 21.02.2015, 04:10 | Message # 36 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
Spain
Messages: 6
Status: Offline
| > Every atheist I've ever heard has defined the word exactly as it is written in the OP. I actually wrote
> all of those definitions myself, and I'm an atheist, so your position that an atheist would not use that
> definition is wrong.
These kind of definitions were written in the early twentieth century when more people in Western society were religious, and they were also more deeply religious. Undoubtedly, just from a statistical standpoint, the people who wrote these dictionary definitions were religious themselves or at least immersed in it, and therefore the definitions contain religious bias and ignorance about what atheism is.
Remember that at this time atheists were persecuted, and had to hide their rejection of religion. Hundreds of years ago they would have been killed for rejecting religion. But even as late as the 1960's, in some Western societies you would possibly lose your job, friends and family. It is only very, very recently that people have been able to find the freedom to publicly reject their childhood indoctrination without too much consequence or personal pain.
The phrasing of the given definition has obvious religious bias. The word 'lacking' is awful and has some serious negative connotations. Having a 'lack' of something suggests inferiority, or that the atheist is 'missing' something. It is akin to having a dictionary definition of 'theist' that states 'someone lacking in education and logic!'
Equally, I've seen other flawed definitions which state atheism is 'a belief that there is no god'. This also has horrible theistic bias around the use of the word 'belief', for obvious reasons.
Even the most literal definition, 'without god' is flawed, in that again it suggests that the atheist is missing something; that they're not 'complete' in some pious way.
I didn't actually say 'an atheist' wouldn't accept these dictionary definitions. It actually saddens me that most actually do just accept whatever is in the dictionary. I said that I prefer a more modern (and therefore enlightened) definition; one that understands what atheism really is, and is owned and controlled by atheists themselves rather than dictated by theists of the past. By extension though, I do wish more atheists would think more about the theistically driven definitions and take a stand against those which have bias.
For me, in my opinion, at its core atheism is purely an act of rejection. It is the theist who is taking an active position and making a claim about the universe, and an atheist is simply someone who does not accept that claim, for whatever reasons, logical or non-logical. Atheism is not a philosophical belief or stance in itself. Nor is it an active claim that there is definitely or probably no god. It says nothing about how a person may feel about religion, nor their views on secularism. It's not a movement or a club, and indeed atheists may have nothing in common at all, except their shared rejection of the religious explanations about how the universe works.
Edited by TesseracT - Saturday, 21.02.2015, 04:16 |
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 21.02.2015, 07:14 | Message # 37 |
 Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| I'm just going to pop in real quick to say that I think you have somewhat strong views about the connotations of these words, in what seems to be a deeply rooted personal conflict with theists on the matter. Atheism is not and need not be a statement of rejection. By that definition, someone who lived their entire life without being introduced to religion and having no concept of a deity could not be an atheist because they would have no notion of the claim to be rejecting. But I think most sensible people would say that this person is an atheist. What makes a person an atheist does not depend on them knowing what theism is.
And yes, if anyone is wondering, I am an atheist, myself. I'm also totally cool with people being theists and holding whatever religious beliefs that they want. I do not share in those beliefs because I am not interested in things that are not falsifiable -- meaning not able to be examined through the scientific method. The most straightforward way to say this is that I lack belief. I can see why some might not like the word "lack", as if belief is something everyone ought to have and you are somehow inferior by not having it, but again I think that's taking an issue with the semantics a level or two higher than what I think most atheists care about. The definition Harbinger used is one I find perfectly reasonable.
|
| |
| |
| TesseracT | Date: Saturday, 21.02.2015, 11:10 | Message # 38 |
|
Observer
Group: Newbies
Spain
Messages: 6
Status: Offline
| To be 'without god' requires that someone somewhere understands the concept of being 'with god'. If theism did not exist at all, the concept of atheism would also not exist.
> What makes a person an atheist does not depend on them knowing what theism is.
That exactly agrees with my previous statements. Atheism is traditionally a label that theists give you, whether you understand the concept of being 'with god' or not. Take the case of a person stranded on a desert island since birth. You're agreeing that the theist (someone who understands the concept of 'with god') can traditionally refer to that person as an atheist whether the person knows it or not, or understands the concept or not.
For the island dweller to refer to themselves as atheist though (in other words, to take control of the label and dictate to the theist what it means rather than vice versa) it requires a theist to explain their god to this person, and for the island dweller to reject the theist's notions and claims. It is very important to realise that before contact with the theist, the island dweller had no need for the word. His self-labelling was a direct response to the theist's claims.
In one of these definitions the theist owns the word and dishes it out with all the ignorance and bias which goes with their beliefs. In the other, the atheist owns the word and does not take any shit from the theist.
When you think about it, people reject religion for all sorts of reasons. The rejection of religion doesn't say anything else about their feelings, values, knowledge or own theories and explanations of how the universe works. The ONLY thing a room full of self-labelled atheists is guaranteed have in common is the fact that they have all rejected religious explanations of the universe. Which is why I personally reduce the label of 'atheist' to this act of rejection.
> I think you have somewhat strong views about the connotations of these words
Yes I do. Theists still kill people in many parts of the world if you disagree with them or reject their claims, and language is one of the tools they use for control and proselytism. For this reason people should take more care about how they refer to each other, and understand the ramifications of accepting labels from others.
Religious people have been brainwashed as children and some have a delusion that is akin to a mental illness. It bothers me greatly that they have traditionally controlled the language and label that atheists have to live with. Even in a supposedly free country like America, the word 'atheist' has terrible church-controlled connotations (many churches teach that atheism is synonymous with 'satanism').
Why should we accept half-assed, ignorant ideas about what our atheism entails from people who can't even imagine or empathise what it means to be free from the delusion they're under? My answer is that we should not.
I know that my personal definition of my atheism will never become the dictionary definition, but I like it a lot. It helps me talk to theists in a way that 'without god' or 'lacking in belief' does not. It puts me in a stronger, clearer position right at the start of our conversation. It dictates to the theist that my atheism only actually exists because they are making a claim about the universe. Without their claim I would not have to take the position of evaluating and rejecting it. I don't accept any other warped definition of the situation that they try to shoehorn in. That is the starting point of our conversation and the onus is clearly on them to be more convincing with their claim and evidence it where possible, rather than I having to justify my atheism in terms of making counter-claims and explanations.
When they ask 'well, how do you think the universe started' I reply with the most intellectually honest answer 'I don't know' (something theists find extremely difficult to say), but that has nothing to do with my atheism. I am an atheist because their argument is weak and unevidenced and I therefore have a right to reject it, and that is completely independent of my own thoughts, feelings and knowledge of how the universe works.
Edited by TesseracT - Saturday, 21.02.2015, 12:43 |
| |
| |
| Watsisname | Date: Saturday, 21.02.2015, 12:45 | Message # 39 |
|
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2613
Status: Offline
| You are free to discuss, rationally, the definitions used in this thread, but I am not going to allow you to write such filth as that religious people are brainwashed or suffering a delusion akin to mental illness. That has absolutely no place on this forum, and I am giving you 3 days off for it. You should also know that we do not use profanity here.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Saturday, 21.02.2015, 19:33 | Message # 40 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote SolarLiner ( ) Until there is supporting evidence that this is not how it works, my theory is that something or someone did something to create it.
But that's not reasonable. There is no evidence that any intelligence created the universe, either directly or indirectly, so why would you choose to believe it? You may want it to be true, or may like the idea, but the best thing is to accept that you don't know, and that there is no reasonable conclusion to reach based on the current information. I agree that it's entirely possible that the universe was in some way initiated by an intelligent entity, but it would be just as irrational for me to conclude that as it would be for me to dismiss it entirely.
Quote TesseracT ( ) Remember that at this time atheists were persecuted, and had to hide their rejection of religion.
That's not true. There were people who were publicly atheist at the time and were very outspoken about it, and they were not persecuted for their views.
Quote TesseracT ( ) But even as late as the 1960's, in some Western societies you would possibly lose your job, friends and family.
This still happens today. But it was a rare thing then, just as it is now.
Quote TesseracT ( ) To be 'without god' requires that someone somewhere understands the concept of being 'with god'. If theism did not exist at all, the concept of atheism would also not exist.
This is not the same as saying that the definition presented in the OP was made by theists. Also, theism is not required for the concept of atheism, only the concept of theism is required for the concept of atheism.
Quote TesseracT ( ) The word 'lacking' is awful and has some serious negative connotations. Having a 'lack' of something suggests inferiority, or that the atheist is 'missing' something.
I lack cancerous tumors and HIV virions, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't have a connotation of inferiority.
Quote TesseracT ( ) It actually saddens me that most actually do just accept whatever is in the dictionary
Except that's not true either. Many atheists have independently come up with this definition as being a good one, not simply referencing a dictionary. I also don't know why you think that's the dictionary definition. Most dictionaries I have looked in had definitions other than that, and usually less accurate.
Quote TesseracT ( ) Atheism is not a philosophical belief or stance in itself. Nor is it an active claim that there is definitely or probably no god. It says nothing about how a person may feel about religion, nor their views on secularism. It's not a movement or a club, and indeed atheists may have nothing in common at all, except their shared rejection of the religious explanations about how the universe works.
No one was disputing that, though atheists don't necessarily reject religious explanations, just the ones that involve deities.
Quote TesseracT ( ) people should take more care about how they refer to each other, and understand the ramifications of accepting labels from others.
I agree. However I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the atheism. And the words "lack" and "belief" for that matter.
Quote TesseracT ( ) Religious people have been brainwashed as children and some have a delusion that is akin to a mental illness.
Some religious people have been brainwashed or indoctrinated, and a few do have delusions related to their beliefs, but the latter case is atypical, and the former is certainly not universal, even if it is common.
Quote TesseracT ( ) Why should we accept half-assed, ignorant ideas about what our atheism entails from people who can't even imagine or empathise what it means to be free from the delusion they're under?
I am annoyed at your implication that I accept the ideas of others instead of coming up with my own. Because I don't.
Quote TesseracT ( ) Without their claim I would not have to take the position of evaluating and rejecting it.
And without other species there would be no reason to call ourselves Homo sapiens. Does that mean that the definition of "Homo sapiens" needs to be an attack on the existence of other species? That seems unreasonable to me.
Quote Watsisname ( ) By that definition, someone who lived their entire life without being introduced to religion and having no concept of a deity could not be an atheist because they would have no notion of the claim to be rejecting. But I think most sensible people would say that this person is an atheist. What makes a person an atheist does not depend on them knowing what theism is.
This gets into classifying different types of atheism. There are two broad types - implicit and explicit, with two subtypes of explicit. An implicit atheist is like the person in your example. They do not have any beliefs about deities, nor could they since it's not a concept they have ever been exposed to. An explicit atheist does not accept the proposition that a deity exists, and this can take two forms: "strong/hard" atheism, which asserts that no deities exist, and "weak/soft" atheism, which simply refuses to accept the theist position without asserting anything themselves.
Strong atheism is what most people associate with the term atheism, and weak atheism is what most people associate with the term agnosticism. (I wrote this out mainly as food for thought and discussion for other readers, as I'm guessing you are quite familiar with all of this already. Your example was a useful point to mention this from).
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
| Kimb | Date: Monday, 04.05.2015, 05:00 | Message # 41 |
 Astronaut
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 66
Status: Offline
| To me, a deist believes in God; an atheist does NOT, simple as that. But one classification you all left out is the AGNOSTIC (one who isn't sure either way on whether God is OR is not).
I happen to be agnostic; I prefer things that can be proven empirically; and unfortunately, religious matters are VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE, either way.
|
| |
| |
| Antza2 | Date: Monday, 04.05.2015, 09:31 | Message # 42 |
 World Builder
Group: Global Moderators
Finland
Messages: 1049
Status: Offline
| Quote Kimb ( ) To me, a deist believes in God; an atheist does NOT, simple as that. But one classification you all left out is the AGNOSTIC (one who isn't sure either way on whether God is OR is not).
"Agnostic" or "gnostic" are not really religious views in themselves. They are a way to specify on what type of theist or atheist one is.
One can be an agnostic atheist ("i do not know if god exists, but i do not believe he does."),
a gnostic atheist ("I know god doesn't exist."),
agnostic theist ("I don't know of god exists, but i believe he does.")
and a gnostic theist ("I know god exists.")
Quote Kimb ( ) VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE
I'd say impossible to prove and also impossible to disprove. This is why i prefer to ignore claims like "There is an invisible deity ruling us all", since we can already explain how the world works without adding a supernatural element to the mix. I find these claims similar to claiming that a tree fell in the forest because a flying saucer ran into it, not because of strong wind or heavy snowfall.
These points have probably been said before in this thread, but i don't have time to read through it all right now, so sorry if i'm repeating someone.
Go to antza2.deviantart.com for cool photos!
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 04.05.2015, 12:15 | Message # 43 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote Kimb ( ) To me, a deist believes in God; an atheist does NOT, simple as that. But one classification you all left out is the AGNOSTIC (one who isn't sure either way on whether God is OR is not).
These words have actual definitions, and have been well defined for the purposes of this conversation. How you prefer to use the words is irrelevant here. Theist, deist, and atheist are well defined in the OP, and Antza2 explained above what agnostic means. Your definitions, aside from deist (which seems to be confused with theist), fit the typical American usage of these words, which are incorrect.
Quote Kimb ( ) religious matters are VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE, either way.
Many are, but some aren't. There are many cases in religion where testable predictions are made, and can thus be falsified. In the case of the Abrahamic god, you can look at the characteristics that god is supposed to posses, as described in the Bible/Koran. One thing you should expect to see is miracles of varying magnitudes occurring with relative frequency, frequently enough that at least one, and likely many, should have been confirmed scientifically at some point in history. The fact that this hasn't happened is sufficient evidence to say that that god, as described in those texts, almost certainly does not exist. The world we live in is simply inconsistent with the supposed behavior and personality of that god.
Likewise, many people claim to believe in a more nebulously defined god, but one which possesses the attributes of being omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. These characteristics are also incompatible with the world we live in. If such a being existed, there would be no suffering. So we can also rule out the existence of an all-powerful all-knowing merciful god.
There are many more detailed claims that can be disproved as well, such as the Koran stating that salt water and fresh water do not mix, the Bible stating that Pi equals 3, or Noah's Flood, to name a few.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
Edited by HarbingerDawn - Monday, 04.05.2015, 12:19 |
| |
| |
| BlueDrache | Date: Monday, 04.05.2015, 15:48 | Message # 44 |
 Space Pilot
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 87
Status: Offline
| What if you're a non-religious deist with supernatural beliefs? I don't see my snowflake on the list.
|
| |
| |
| HarbingerDawn | Date: Monday, 04.05.2015, 16:28 | Message # 45 |
|
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8717
Status: Offline
| Quote BlueDrache ( ) What if you're a non-religious deist with supernatural beliefs? I don't see my snowflake on the list.
That's quite well covered by the "deist" option.
All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
|
| |
| |
ENG
New site
Italy 
United States 
France 
Spain 
Finland