How many posters here are Atheist?

[Elessarina]

I just wondered as Religion and Science see to be in a constant tussle to provide answers.

 

 

So which side of the fence does everyone sit on?

 

Can anyone truly sit in the middle?

 

I am Atheist. I just trust in science .. it seems completely alien to me that people can take the Bible as true or believe in a supernatural being.

 

 

Edit: I have added a poll to this thread. Please bear in mind that Elassarina is not asking you "please tell me your religious beliefs". There is an 'Other' option as a safety net, but I don't expect that anyone should really need it. Sayo.

[1veedo]

How many posters here are Atheist?

Most of us are.

 

Do a pool (edit your above post) -- Do you believe in a god?

 

Yes or no.

[Elessarina]

1veedo.. not sure how to do that...

[Phi for All]

Currently we don't discuss religion much. We may be reinstating a Philosophy & Religion subforum but even if we do, its aim will not be to argue whether or not God exists or any one religion is right or wrong or even why being an atheist is so much better.

 

Been there, done that, washed the T-shirt so many times it doesn't fit any more. If we bring P&R back it will be with the caveat that we're not interested in trying to use science & logic to disprove religion and we don't want anyone preaching that their religion is the best.

 

Science and religion can be discussed together but they can't be used to defeat one another. One is all about observed phenomena, the other is about faith in the unobservable. If you've already made up your mind one way or another then your lack of skepticism may rule you out as a candidate for religious discussions.

[timo]

I am Atheist.

Darn, blew my cover.

[Phi for All]

I am Atheist.[/quote']Darn, blew my cover.

LOL, that's the first thing I thought of when I read that, especially since it was capitalized. You know it's against the rules to have multiple accounts!

[Daecon]

I'm a Secular Humanist, so I guess that counts as being an atheist.

[314159]

I'd classify myself as a bright. A member of a growing group of those who share a naturalistic worldview. Specifically, I'd describe myself as atheist within that group.

 

http://www.the-brights.net/

[the tree]

Can we close this thread before things get all melted and sticky and gross flies and wasps get attracted and the little kids start crying and no-one has any way of cleaning their hands, please?

[Sayonara]

Or... only people who are interested in actually answering the OP post replies. That works too.

 

I don't see any compelling reason to close it and I am pretty sure Elessarina's choice would be to invite further discussion of her original question.

[ecoli]

Can we close this thread before things get all melted and sticky and gross flies and wasps get attracted and the little kids start crying and no-one has any way of cleaning their hands, please?

 

I agree with you... but the mods are holding open for right now, the matter is currently being discussed. But, don't worry. This thread is being closely monitored. It might actually be a good test run to see if SFN can handle a return of the P&R forum.

[the tree]

Okay then.

 

I'm going to guess that most regular posters here would call themselves atheists, 4/5 maybe. The logic and pendantic nature that makes for a skilled thinker would lead me to think that most of them would call themselves weak atheists which, in case you don't know, is describes an absence of belief rather than a belief in absense. (not to be confused with proper agnosticism, which is the belief that it is impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion).

 

Now it's relatively important that, whatever either Dawkins or Hovind are inclined to imply, science doesn't have anything to say about the existence of God. A proper adherence to the scientific method should mean that faith or absence thereof shouldn't interfere.

[YT2095]

OK then, I`m fine with a Direct Reply too (even though I fail to see the relevance in the question).

 

 

1) I just wondered as Religion and Science see to be in a constant tussle to provide answers.

 

 

2) So which side of the fence does everyone sit on?

 

3) Can anyone truly sit in the middle?

 

4) I am Atheist. I just trust in science .. it seems completely alien to me that people can take the Bible as true or believe in a supernatural being.

(Numbers Mine)

 

1> Seem to be is correct, however you`ll also not that it`s not the Science attacking religion, it`s the other way around.

 

2> I speak for myself as a Natural Pantheist (like a Techno-Witch), the persuit of Science and discovery brings me closer to "God(s)".

 

3> probably, Yes, there will be the Undecideds as in any group.

I have a firm belief, and it`s in no way in conflict with Science, in fact quite the opposite

 

4> Fine, and that`s cool too. as long as non of it gets in the way of Unbiased Truth seeking and proper Science and it`s methodology, you can believe in the Tooth Faerie for me.

 

there`s your answers.

[Sayonara]

2> I speak for myself as a Natural Pantheist (like a Techno-Witch), the persuit of Science and discovery brings me closer to "God(s)".

Isn't that basically the same as being a theist?

Argh you have blurred the line.

[Realitycheck]

(not to be confused with proper agnosticism, which is the belief that it is impossible to draw a meaningful conclusion).

 

I thought agnosticism could also represent God as being "unknowable", such as he really doesn't care about so and so little amoeba's life. He's just an animal that has everything done automatically and he doesn't even pay attention to self-betterment.

 

Well, I guess that's the same.

[Sisyphus]

OTHER

 

The best short answer I can give for where I am right now is that I'm a theological noncognitivist. That sort of makes me an atheist, but I don't describe myself that way, because the statement "I don't believe in God" would not be strictly true, because I don't think "God" is a meaningful term when used generally or in an abstract theological sense.

 

Other definitions might give different answers:

God of the Bible and/or Quran as He is literally depicted: strong atheist.

God as an omnipotent creator being: noncognitivist.

"God-like" sentient "ruler" beings, somewhere: weak agnostic.

"God" as an abstract, non-personal, non-conscious order and coherence to the universe: theist, but lacking complete faith.

[Dak]

Now it's relatively important that, whatever either Dawkins or Hovind are inclined to imply, science doesn't have anything to say about the existence of God. A proper adherence to the scientific method should mean that faith or absence thereof shouldn't interfere.

 

that's true -- without any evidence in favour, you're left with 'could be, could not be' -- but that doesn't neccesarily translate as weak atheism per se (i.e., an 'abscence of belief'). all it requires is the acknoledgement that we don't know for sure. you could, i think, believe that the (lack of) evidence inplies that god is unlikely to exist to the point where you can justify believing in his non-existance, whilst still acknowledging that you could be wrong (after all, abscence of evidence != evidence of abscence, even if it can == suggestion of abscence).

 

that's my take, anyway.

 

@ OP: 'strong' atheist, with a nod towards agnostisism I suppose.

 

[edit] by the by, i would assume that with a thread title of 'how many of you are atheist', your poll might over-represent the number of atheists here[/edit]

[Daecon]

I suppose I could be open to the idea of becoming agnostic while there are still unexplained mysteries of the Scientific world... but I imagine that's as close I would get.

[doG]

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in any God(s) and I don't believe anyone could ever prove or disprove the existance of any God(s). IMO, the concept of god is a man made concept to provide an answer for the questions man doesn't know the answer to yet.

[1veedo]

Now it's relatively important that, whatever either Dawkins or Hovind are inclined to imply, science doesn't have anything to say about the existence of God. A proper adherence to the scientific method should mean that faith or absence thereof shouldn't interfere.

Technically speaking there are actually arguments from science that prove God (or certain interpretations like the God of the Bible) doesn't exist. I know everyone likes to be modest to avoid confrontation but if you assume God is the literal God described in the Bible he cannot possibly exist simply because it contradicts known historical and scientific facts that we know to be true. I'm no particular expert on this though.

 

Even loose interpretations of God can somewhat be addressed by science but you leave the more concrete world of facts into abstract concepts and the like. And then you run into the same tautological problems associated with proving a negative, which outside of mathematics and strict logic is impossible.

 

It's really the contradictions between a literal interpretation of the Bible and science that got me doubting my religion in the first place. The way I see it anything you can show me in "this world" necessarily outrules any sort of faith from "other worlds" cause I can see it, it's real, and there's no way that it's not real. It's really annoying when people will refuse to accept something that's right in front of their face because of their religious beliefs.

[Bettina]

Atheist

[YT2095]

Argh you have blurred the line.

 

Indeed

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism

[Martin]

I have a deep joyous faith in the non-existence of god(s).

Each day I thank heaven that god or gods do not exist.

It makes the universe a nicer place to live. (IMHO )

[J.C.MacSwell]

I'm a sometimes spiritual weak agnostic. I cannot understand Strong Atheism, though I doubt there is any harm in it, or taking the Bible literally. I respect most religions, especially taken in their historical context, though often not the way they are interpreted and followed.

[abskebabs]

Hmmm... I'm a bit late to join this thread but to be pedantically participative: I consider myself now to be agnostic. I don't really see the reason to believe in anything absolutely, and I think that the methods of reasoning that we use to yield answers do not yield absolutes, and so it is unreasonable to have absolute belief in anything. I acknowledge this might sound aslightly solipsistic.

 

Also with reference to the existence of a supernatural being, I do not guess its form and I can only relate that the God referred to in most religions, from my perspective seems unlikely. This is only relative to however; for example, how I consider the believabillity of the keyboard I am typing on for example. Then again, I guess this does come down to semantics slightly, and it depends on what aspects of phenomena that you "believe" in.

 

Actually if you don't really believe in anything in a certain sense, do you belong to some other category, and not agnosticism as I have alluded to?