Poll: religon: a 7 point scale

[Cliff_m85]

Obviously you prove that you don't really understand evolution. You are just using old arguments by creationists that have been debunked time and time again.

So mutations don't happen in random places and they are not few and far between?
I guess I am being a tad stubborn but the biggest flaw of evolution is pointed out by Darwin himself.

No, mutations are not few and far between. What is the flaw you are talking about? I think I know, because it's a common quote about the eye that has been proven to be a quote-minded statement because the rest of the quote explains why the eye evolved as it did, but please let me be wrong and share with me the point he made.

 

[Code_Red]

I used to believe in something,but now I dont really have any belief in anything,so about a 6 for me.

 

[Godavari]

I agree with the OP, I'm about 6.75. I tend to drift lower sometimes, though.

 

[Asciotes]

I put myself as agnostic, but I havean idea as to what people are worshipping when they say "God"

 

[TheIr0nMike]

I'd say about a 6.5

 

[Lusty]

I only say that God created evolution because alone evolution does not make sense;

Even if it doesn't make sense, why should it logically follow that God created it? Science can't explain everything, it probably never will be able to. But just because there is a gap in our knowledge doesn't mean you have to fill it with God.

it cannot create the diverse systems that are common out of thin air. Its like saying gills directly evolved to lungs and anything in between that jump was non-beneficial so the organism dies and there is no change.

You're talking about the argument from Irreducible complexity. It's been done to death, and much as I hate to link to Wikipedia, there's some good responses here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community

 

[Emperorpeng]

I find it depressing that there are so few believers.

God's the only thing keeping my Anxiety Disorder from destroying me half the time.

 

[anNIALLator]

I'm about 4-5. There may be a god but if there isn't and you die you don't lose much but if there is a god and you do die not believing in him/her then there might be consequences.

Pascal's Wager = Fail, because believing is not something you can do as a matter of policy. Also, you're setting up a false dichotomy where you assume that there either is or is not the particular deity you have chosen. Why not any other? Wouldn't an atheist fair better when confronted after death by (insert name of alternative deity) than a christian who believed in one of said deity's rivals? This argument is a essentially a bet, but would you bet on your chosen deity valuing faked belief over honest skepticism?

 

[Cliff_m85]

I find it depressing that there are so few believers.

God's the only thing keeping my Anxiety Disorder from destroying me half the time.

They have medication for anxiety disorder, you know?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

6.99

God could exist, but I think that it's a very silly idea. However, I'm not going to force my opinions upon anyone. They have a right to believe.

 

[Lusty]

I won't try converting you, but assuming there's either a Christian God or nothing, mathematically speaking you really should believe in God. Look-up Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's wager doesn't really work though does it? Mainly because it assumes belief is a choice. I can't 'make' myself, or anyone else for that matter, believe or not beleive in anything. Logic can't defeat faith.

Which is why trying to convert someone to atheism, or religion I suppose, is pointless. You can only arrive there on your own.

Edit: Damn, ninja'd by 4 posts! Slightly different counter though I suppose.

 

[Emperorpeng]

It's not really a diagnosed thing. I just know that God helps me cope.

 

[I Stomp on Kittens]

I'm at a 7

 

[Nickolai77]

I won't try converting you, but assuming there's either a Christian God or nothing, mathematically speaking you really should believe in God. Look-up Pascal's Wager.

Pascal's wager doesn't really work though does it? Mainly because it assumes belief is a choice. I can't 'make' myself, or anyone else for that matter, believe or not beleive in anything. Logic can't defeat faith.

I would also point out that pascals wager does not take other religions into account, nor does it provide a "good" reason to believe in God.- If you only believe in God because its a safer bet in case he does not exist, would your faith mean anything??

I'm a 6, we can only say if something exists or not if we can empirically "check" if it exists. God is not empirical, so you can not check his existence, this leaves you with rather indirect methods of finding out if he exists or not. Based on what we know from the the physical world- (evolution, evil, the human brain) its fairly safe to say that the chances of a meta-physical God existing, in the classic thiest form, are slim.

 

[Fightgarr]

Frankly I believe that the universe is far too absurd for it to be any possibility the human mind can comprehend. The inherent problem with religion debates, for me, is that everyone is trying to come up with the answer that makes the most sense to them. To that I respond: "The universe does not make sense". Of course, you could argue that the universe follows the laws of physics and science and whatnot, but even those are absurd concepts on a fundamental scale. What am I? I am experiencing things, that's all I know. What I'm experiencing does something called "making sense" wherein my surroundings are connected with concepts in my brain but since experience is inherently absurd there is no point in me arguing what will and what will not happen and what is and what is not the origin of the universe. For all I know, my birth was the origin of this universe as we know it.

I do have another problem with religion threads. Its that many people feel the need to argue their beliefs. This is assuming that people have come to the thread with their mind not made up, looking for someone to tell them what to believe. A simple statement of beliefs and a discussion as to why is fine. But when it comes to actual debating, it seems ludicrous that either side is in the right or wrong, and that either side will convince anyone of anything. For the record, most people who come to a religion thread have made up their mind.

 

[HentMas]

WOW, look at this, its a religion tread that i think is going fairly civil

i voted other because i dont enjoy being labeled as anything (well, mainly because my belief changes rather quicly)

but as of now, i know there is a God but not embed in any religion

 

[anNIALLator]

it cannot create the diverse systems that are common out of thin air. Its like saying gills directly evolved to lungs and anything in between that jump was non-beneficial so the organism dies and there is no change.

A set of gills which could also breathe air would be very beneficial to fish living in shallow water likely to dry up, or that live in poor oxygen water, which can jump out of water to escape predators, which might have to leave the water to reach a spawning pool. Just look at the fish that can survive outside water nowadays, like the climbing perch.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

All you got to ask yourself is would an atheist fly an airplane into a building?

Encase you're wondering what the answer is, 9/11.

I thought the answer was a retard. Sounds like something a ZERO would do or someone with no will of their own who believes what other people say for no reasonable reason.

7:17 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq3T28-1rfw]

 

[anNIALLator]

Whoa starting to get off topic. Please don't start with the "Your side is wrong because they have killed more people" blah blah blah. When you go in that direction it always turns a civil discussion into a flame war about hitler or whoever.

 

[bladeofdarkness]

you CANT actually mean what you just said
what about santa, or the tooth fairy, or the flying spaghetti monster

when two sides are arguing, the answer does NOT, by default, lies somewhere in the middle
its quite possible for one side to be plain wrong

Of course one side is wrong, there is always one side that's wrong when it comes to an arguement. Doesn't mean that that the answer's obvious though.

This is especialy true when arguing about whether or not something (such as God or Dragons) exist. How can you actually prove that they don't exist? If they don't exist then there's no proof that they don't exist, so it's impossible to actually prove that they don't exist.

the claim that god exist demands proof to verify such a claim
and so long as such proof does not exist or is not presented, there is no requirement to dis-prove it
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
and "the burden of proof lies always with he who asserts, not he who denies"