Pick a number......

thebouldwhacker

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

thebouldwhacker

Hi all,

Thought I'd post this up with a poll just to see where people stand. If this is a repeat thread so sorry...

Galvasean

Number 6 for me. Anyone who thinks they are a number seven is just as deluded as number 1.

rockmongrel

6 for me.

I live with the philosophy, one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god/creator/builder, so one should just get over it and live their lives.

Edit: Typo.

Overblood

Galvasean wrote: »

Number 6 for me. Anyone who thinks they are a number seven is just as deluded as number 1.

What's wrong with picking no.7? Where would you be on that scale regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Sam Vimes

What's wrong with picking number 7 is that you're saying you know enough about the universe to completely dismiss the possibility of a god. Whatever about the god in the bible, human beings don't know enough yet to totally rule out all forms of god, we can just say it's very very unlikely

It's about the same as a theist who looks at the unlikelihood of earth being where it is and life evolving etc and says it must have been a god, ruling out all possible natural explanations

We have no evidence of the supernatural but that's not the same as having evidence of its non existence

The Mad Hatter

Six.

Occasional vague beliefs in something spiritual (hey, I'm a musician), but an overarching god figure? I don't think so.

toiletduck

Six. No surprise that it's the top polling option.

CerebralCortex

I picked 7 just to be contrary and plus I hate being labeled and classified. Everyones experience is different.

Zillah

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We have no evidence of the supernatural but that's not the same as having evidence of its non existence

Yes it is evidence actually. Its not proof, which is what we'd need for option 7.

5uspect

Overblood wrote: »

What's wrong with picking no.7? Where would you be on that scale regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The flying spaghetti monster is a version of Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

It is very very very unlikely but cannot be discounted. The argument is that if someone want their god respected etc they must in turn offer the same respect they desire to the Pink Unicorn. This winds up theists no end.

Húrin

2

Overblood

5uspect wrote: »

The flying spaghetti monster is a version of Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

It is very very very unlikely but cannot be discounted. The argument is that if someone want their god respected etc they must in turn offer the same respect they desire to the Pink Unicorn. This winds up theists no end.

Why are you explaining the flying spaghetti monster to me? I asked you where on the scale of 1 to 7 you would find yourself regarding the FSM. Do you think it might exist? I'd be a 7.

This poll is silly anyway, since it could be applied to anything. How about I tell you that there exists a creature that looks like a half cow, one quarter unicorn and one quarter duck that flys using photon rays shot out it's arse. You'd pick a number 6 would you?

Calibos

If the question were phrased in terms of the God of any and all human religions past or present, I would pick Number 7.

If the question is phrased in terms of a non interventionist universe creating 'God' ie. a Deist God, then I would pick number 6.

I have a feeling that would be how most here would vote.

5uspect

Overblood wrote: »

Why are you explaining the flying spaghetti monster to me? I asked you where on the scale of 1 to 7 you would find yourself regarding the FSM. Do you think it might exist? I'd be a 7.

This poll is silly anyway, since it could be applied to anything. How about I tell you that there exists a creature that looks like a half cow, one quarter unicorn and one quarter duck that flys using photon rays shot out it's arse. You'd pick a number 6 would you?

Now you're getting it! In science you can only fail to show something. You falsify a claim, no more. The evidence shows that hypothesis X is invalid at explaining the evidence and therefore unlikely. Just because something appears silly like a photon propelled unicorn duck doesn't mean its impossible. Look at the platypus for an example of silly.

If I described a platypus to someone they'd think I was taking the piss. If I showed them evidence of one (photos, a live specimen) then I have failed to falsify my hypothesis that such a creature indeed exists but falsified their hypothesis that I'm talking out of my arse.

Of course the hypothesis remains that the whole world is a dream and none of this is real. Its unlikely but must be considered, at least philosophically.
Ultimately a lot of these ideas, including God, are untestable so they are heaped into the silly bin anyway.

Overblood

The god of the Christian bible doesn't exist. I know it's unscientific to choose no.7, but if I was scientific enough to get to 6 by reasoning etc., then I may as well jump over to no.7. I'm rounding off my 6.9 to a 7.

And as Calibos said, this is my view on the god of christianity.

Whatever atheist picks no.6 is lying to themselves.

Dades

Overblood wrote: »

Whatever atheist picks no.6 is lying to themselves.

What about 3-5? Those darned agnostics just won't admit it!

The Mad Hatter

Overblood wrote: »

The god of the Christian bible doesn't exist. I know it's unscientific to choose no.7, but if I was scientific enough to get to 6 by reasoning etc., then I may as well jump over to no.7. I'm rounding off my 6.9 to a 7.

And as Calibos said, this is my view on the god of christianity.

Whatever atheist picks no.6 is lying to themselves.

Seriously, I'm gonna have to message the admins about installing a 'wtf' button next to the 'thanks' button...

5uspect

To pick no. 7 is to be totally and absolutely sure. Nothing is that certain, even the rotation of the earth around the sun as hard as it is to believe. As you say you would pick 6.9 and I would agree with this part.
But even 6.999.. is a world away from the absolute unchangable closed world of 7.

TheInquisitor

I pick 7 because i am 100% sure there is no god

dvpower

Overblood wrote: »

What's wrong with picking no.7? Where would you be on that scale regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

A Flying Spagetti Monster might exist in some parallel universe.

... come to think of it, God might exist in a parallel universe.:eek:

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I pick 7 because i am 100% sure there is no god

Excellent. Now, if you could just provide the proof you have, we can all upgrade to a 7.

pH

I just wish there was an '8' ... I'd have gone with that

Black Swan

Can't pick a number, because your scale is a dichotomy between theist and atheist, and a distortion of reality in that it places people into convenient categories, when their behaviour is often more complex and context laden (as is the natural world we live in). See Jacques Derrida in Points for more discussion regarding the problematic condition of dichotomies.



**Yikes! I've had way too much coffee this morning!:eek: Someone pass me a Guinness!

Overblood

Why is there a 7th choice if anyone who chooses it is wrong? It should really be 1-6 so shouldn't it?

I would choose #7 for many things, including a species of tiger that looks like a banana, but not yellow like a banana, it still has it's original tiger colours, and it lives on O' Connell street in Dublin.

Are you saying I'm wrong to choose #7 and say that there's absolutely no such thing as the banana tiger?

To those who say that it is akin to choosing #1, that is not true. Choosing #1 displays an extreme amount of arrogance. God exists, he made me, he made my universe for me, he listens to me, he watches over me etc etc.

Option #7 is the total opposite. There is no god, plain and simple, just as there is no banana tiger.

thebouldwhacker

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Can't pick a number, because your scale is a dichotomy between theist and atheist, and a distortion of reality in that it places people into convenient categories, when their behaviour is often more complex and context laden (as is the natural world we live in). See Jacques Derrida in Points for more discussion regarding the problematic condition of dichotomies.

ahh... one can hardly encapsulate the true spectrum of beliefs here with a 6 option poll, think of it as a toy rather than the inqusition

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Seriously, I'm gonna have to message the admins about installing a 'wtf' button next to the 'thanks' button...

Though I think this summs up my feelings better:D:D:D

Overblood

dvpower wrote: »

Excellent. Now, if you could just provide the proof you have, we can all upgrade to a 7.

Noboady has to disprove the millenia old hallucinations of an illiterate stone age shepherd.

If that's the case then we're all f**ked for not believing in unicorns, FSM, and black turtle-gobbling cheese cake monsters (they live on the moon - DISPROVE IT SO!!!).

Don't fool yourselves. When you log off tonight and make a cup of tea, you'll be a #7. Come back to boards tomorrow and you'll be a #6 again. It's "cool" to be a #6 isn't it?

Sam Vimes

Overblood wrote: »

Why is there a 7th choice if anyone who chooses it is wrong? It should really be 1-6 so shouldn't it?

I would choose #7 for many things, including a species of tiger that looks like a banana, but not yellow like a banana, it still has it's original tiger colours, and it lives on O' Connell street in Dublin.

Are you saying I'm wrong to choose #7 and say that there's absolutely no such thing as the banana tiger?

To those who say that it is akin to choosing #1, that is not true. Choosing #1 displays an extreme amount of arrogance. God exists, he made me, he made my universe for me, he listens to me, he watches over me etc etc.

Option #7 is the total opposite. There is no god, plain and simple, just as there is no banana tiger.

It is acceptable to be a #7 for the banana tiger because we can thoroughly check O'Connell street and verifying that there is no banana tiger there. That claim is falsifiable. And we can say with reasonable certainty that a tiger cannot exist in the shape of a banana because of our knowledge of biology. But evolution is a funny thing and we have not been to every planet in the universe so it's possible that there is one out there somewhere.

You can still live your life operating under the assumption that the tiger does not exist. Being a #6 just leaves open the possibility that you could be wrong

Overblood

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is acceptable to be a #7 for the banana tiger because we can thoroughly check O'Connell street and verifying that there is no banana tiger there. That claim is falsifiable. And we can say with reasonable certainty that a tiger cannot exist in the shape of a banana because of our knowledge of biology. But evolution is a funny thing and we have not been to every planet in the universe so it's possible that there is one out there somewhere.

You can still live your life operating under the assumption that the tiger does not exist. Being a #6 just leaves open the possibility that you could be wrong

The banana tiger does exist on o'connell street. He uses a cloaking device, on loan from the Predator. DISPROVE IT SO!!!:pac:

So you'd choose #6 in relation to the banana tiger of O' Connell street?

If a banana tiger is eventually captured and displayed in a zoo, I'd move to #1 and accept that I was wrong. But for now, I'm #7.

Genghiz Cohen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is acceptable to be a #7 for the banana tiger because we can thoroughly check O'Connell street and verifying that there is no banana tiger there. That claim is falsifiable. And we can say with reasonable certainty that a tiger cannot exist in the shape of a banana because of our knowledge of biology. But evolution is a funny thing and we have not been to every planet in the universe so it's possible that there is one out there somewhere.

In Quantum Mechanics while not being observed, O'Connell street is in all states, including being made entirely of the lint out of the bottom of my pockets.
It's only when we observe something we collapse the probability waves to a definite state.

So, at 4 in the morning when nobody is around, it is in fact infested with those pesky banana tigers.

Or so is my understanding.

Sam Vimes

Overblood wrote: »

The banana tiger does exist on o'connell street. He uses a cloaking device, on loan from the Predator. DISPROVE IT SO!!!:pac:

So you'd choose #6 in relation to the banana tiger of O' Connell street?

If a banana tiger is eventually captured and displayed in a zoo, I'd move to #1 and accept that I was wrong. But for now, I'm #7.

Yes I'd be a #6 in that case. Until I can definitively prove that there is no banana tiger with a cloaking device there is always the possibility that there is something going on that I don't know about. I can operate under the assumption that there's no tiger though and behave exactly as a #7 until more evidence is presented

Galvasean

Overblood wrote: »

What's wrong with picking no.7? Where would you be on that scale regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

6. Just like any other God I find the idea extremely unlikely. I can't be 100% sure, but I'm pretty damn close.
If we want to split hairs I'm a very high 6, as close to 7 you can get without actually being a 7.

5uspect

Overblood wrote: »

Are you saying I'm wrong to choose #7 and say that there's absolutely no such thing as the banana tiger?

Any option but 6 is wrong.

Hurry,Reboot

Do you guys really take your little poll seriously.......?
Given its posted in the "Atheism and Agnosticism" forum, surely its about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest?

Galvasean

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Do you guys really take your little poll seriously.......?
Given its posted in the "Atheism and Agnosticism" forum, surely its about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest?

Considering teh poll is there to gauge the opinions of the people who frequent this particular forum, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job.

Hurry,Reboot

Galvasean wrote: »

Considering teh poll is there to gauge the opinions of the people who frequent this particular forum, I'd say it's doing a pretty good job.

Why include 1-4 as options then; they are hardly going to get much traffic.....

As atheist-types are forever talking about scientific proof, how scientific do you think a poll like this is?

You would all scoff at a poll performed and published by, for instance, the Iona Institute as being biased and of no real value. At least admit the same about your own one.

Galvasean

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Why include 1-4 as options then; they are hardly going to get much traffic.....

Because we get religious people posting here. They are perfectly entitled to do so and should be allowed partake in the poll.

As atheist-types are forever talking about scientific proof, how scientific do you think a poll like this is?

You would all scoff at a poll performed and published by, for instance, the Iona Institute as being biased and of no real value. At least admit the same about your own one.

Headline: "Atheism & Agnosticism Forum Contains Mostly Atheists & Agnostics"
Hardly misleading research now is it?

Zombrex

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Do you guys really take your little poll seriously.......?
Given its posted in the "Atheism and Agnosticism" forum, surely its about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest?

Have you never seen one of those? They are freaking hilarious! "Useless" me (sore) ass!

Hurry,Reboot

Galvasean wrote: »

Headline: "Atheism & Agnosticism Forum Contains Mostly Atheists & Agnostics"
Hardly misleading research now is it?

I didnt call it misleading.
I called it biased and of no real value.
It is both.
But I guess it will make a lot of people in this forum clap themselves on the back for getting the "right" answer.

grames_bond

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

I didnt call it misleading.
I called it biased and of no real value.
It is both.
But I guess it will make a lot of people in this forum clap themselves on the back for getting the "right" answer.

just because this is A&A it doesnt mean only atheists post here, it is a public forum so anyone is allowed post and vote....just incase you forgot or overlooked that little fact!

Galvasean

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

I didnt call it misleading.
I called it biased and of no real value.
It is both.

How is it biased if it's open to everyone? As I said before it's to gauge the opinions of those who frequent the forum.

But I guess it will make a lot of people in this forum clap themselves on the back for getting the "right" answer.

Knowing a lot of the people who post here, being part of the majority will most likely annoy them. :pac:

Hurry,Reboot

Galvasean wrote: »

How is it biased if it's open to everyone? As I said before it's to gauge the opinions of those who frequent the forum.

Yes, and the people who frequent this forum are overwhelmingly of one opinion on the God issue so the poll is biased and of no real value......

Here's a little illustration which may assist you:

Is a poll of people who attend the local Catholic Church unbiased?
The Church is open to everyone.
Yawn

The Mad Hatter

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Yes, and the people who frequent this forum are overwhelmingly of one opinion on the God issue so the poll is biased and of no real value......

Here's a little illustration which may assist you:

Is a poll of people who attend the local Catholic Church unbiased?
The Church is open to everyone.
Yawn

What precisely do you think the poll is trying to find out? Do you think it's trying to get a general mean of the population? Do you think we're going to submit the results to the census office?

Galvasean

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Yes, and the people who frequent this forum are overwhelmingly of one opinion on the God issue so the poll is biased and of no real value......

It's not biased if it clearly states that it is looking for the opinions of those who frequent this particular forum. In taht case it suits it's purpose quite well. It may be of no real value to you, but it may be of some value to regular forum contributors who may be curious as to how their fellow posters feel about this particular issue.

Here's a little illustration which may assist you:

Is a poll of people who attend the local Catholic Church unbiased?
The Church is open to everyone.
Yawn

Actually such a poll would be a very good way of gauging the opinions of those who frequent said church. Provided the results were presented stating that this were the case, as opposed to saying that this is a representation of a much wider demograph, I see no problem with it.

thebouldwhacker

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

ahh... one can hardly encapsulate the true spectrum of beliefs here with a 6 option poll, think of it as a toy rather than the inqusition

Shame you dont actually take the time to read threads before you troll onto one

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Do you guys really take your little poll seriously.......?
Given its posted in the "Atheism and Agnosticism" forum, surely its about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest?

Thats the trouble with people & religion, they decide to assume what people think and become a judge before they ask any questions

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Why include 1-4 as options then; they are hardly going to get much traffic.....


As atheist-types are forever talking about scientific proof, how scientific do you think a poll like this is?quote]

If you bothered to read anything in this fourm you would know that this is an existing format and was posted by me so I know where the posters are coming from, it was not for me to tamper with... now until you have something worth while to contribute why not head over here until you may learn something about yourself, just tell them your a troll... or be sent here where you have prob been before...

thebouldwhacker

Also FYI I have askes a mod in the christianity forum if I can pose the same question over there, as yes I do want to know the 'level' of peoples beliefs, not everything is as black and white as religion you know:p

The Mad Hatter

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Also FYI I have askes a mod in the christianity forum if I can pose the same question over there, as yes I do want to know the 'level' of peoples beliefs, not everything is as black and white as religion you know:p

Actually, similar questions have been asked over there. I think the finding was that more atheists post on the Christianity forum than Christians...

May be wrong in my memory of that, though...

thebouldwhacker

thats why I have asked, if they say no, such is life. Be a bit cheeky of me just to dump it in there...:D

Hurry,Reboot

Galvasean wrote: »

It's not biased if it clearly states that it is looking for the opinions of those who frequent this particular forum. In taht case it suits it's purpose quite well. It may be of no real value to you, but it may be of some value to regular forum contributors who may be curious as to how their fellow posters feel about this particular issue.

Hey, I dont mind if you guys want to do a poll of what atheists believe but it is clearly biased towards options 4 thru 7... That is a simple fact. It may be of value to you but is of little scientific value. My original assertion was that it was unscientific, biased and of no real value. That remains the case.

Hurry,Reboot

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Shame you dont actually take the time to read threads before you troll onto one


Thats the trouble with people & religion, they decide to assume what people think and become a judge before they ask any questions

If you bothered to read anything in this fourm you would know that this is an existing format and was posted by me so I know where the posters are coming from, it was not for me to tamper with... now until you have something worth while to contribute why not head over here until you may learn something about yourself, just tell them your a troll... or be sent here where you have prob been before...

Oh stop whinging.
How can it be trolling to question the validity of your little poll when you questioned its own validity yourself!!!

thebouldwhacker

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Hey, I dont mind if you guys want to do a poll of what atheists believe but it is clearly biased towards options 4 thru 7... That is a simple fact. It may be of value to you but is of little scientific value. My original assertion was that it was unscientific, biased and of no real value. That remains the case.

Stop being so foolish, excluding the fist 4 would have excluded +/- 17% of votes so far, the poll has been explaned to you and I for one value each vote.

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Oh stop whinging.
How can it be trolling to question the validity of your little poll when you questioned its own validity yourself!!!

Again, this now means that you have read (at least one post) about it and still persist with your vain labour, this in its very self is trolling.

Please leave and start a thread elsewhere to define trolling if you wish to discuss it.
You dont think the poll is applicable, well done, you have had a thought, I respect that but you have expressed your opinion there is no need to continue.

Mickeroo

If it was a specific god from any of the organized religions i'd probably go a 7, but since the poll didnt specify i'm a 6.

As for the teapot thing, my cousin is an astronaut in the states, he assured me he put the teapot in orbit himself at my request. I know it's there.