Pick a number......

5uspect

Oh noes, the little internet poll is upsetting the troll can we can't submitt it to the Daily Mail Fail as hard fact.

Hurry,Reboot

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

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.

I would have thought that questioning the value and basis of a poll would be something atheists would be strongly in favour of. Atheists generally value independent verifiable scientific evidence.

Except on here, of course!
Here, its trolling.........!!

Of course, if you want to post polls with 7 choices amongst people who overwhelmingly are going to choose only 2 of those options and then discuss the poll like it is of any kind of real value, go for it.

But try and remember the irony/hypocrisy, the next time you spout on about how ridiculous it is to believe in something for which there is no independently verifiable scieintific evidence for!!!

Sam Vimes

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

I would have thought that questioning the value and basis of a poll would be something atheists would be strongly in favour of. Atheists generally value independent verifiable scientific evidence.

Except on here, of course!
Here, its trolling.........!!

Of course, if you want to post polls with 7 choices amongst people who overwhelmingly are going to choose only 2 of those options and then discuss the poll like it is of any kind of real value, go for it.

But try and remember the irony/hypocrisy, the next time you spout on about how ridiculous it is to believe in something for which there is no independently verifiable scieintific evidence for!!!

I would say it's of value because a lot of religious people like to think that all atheists are #7 on the list so they can dismiss them or call it a religion in itself. The poll shows them to be wrong

thebouldwhacker

Yawn... oh are you back?

Sorry can you explane your logic?

Its my intrest, an indivdual, asking a simple question. There will be no reports from this. there will be no arguments formulated, I think the first post covers this, i want to know of the people who visit this forum what their background belief is. again if you want to run a poll excluding the first four questions be my guest, but imho that whold make about as much sense as the rest of your posts to date.

So look go argue else where, i found the perfect thread for you, the guys in the thunderdome, well they would just love a visit from you, you can even put up a poll with three options, shall I tell them to PM you, just say the would and youll have loads of new friends... wouldnt that be fun for ya:D :rolleyes::pac:

Hurry,Reboot

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Yawn... oh are you back?

Sorry can you explane your logic?

Its my intrest, an indivdual, asking a simple question. There will be no reports from this. there will be no arguments formulated, I think the first post covers this, i want to know of the people who visit this forum what their background belief is. again if you want to run a poll excluding the first four questions be my guest, but imho that whold make about as much sense as the rest of your posts to date.

The poll has less value than a poll in a Man Utd fanzine asking who the best player in England is.....!?

It might be something to stimulate debate but it is unscientific, biased and of no real value.

Which is what I said at the outset. If you cant follow the logic of that, there is little hope for you.

So stop crying and callling someone who criticises you a troll and just admit that your little poll is nothing more than a conversation starter. Then you may have some credibility.

thebouldwhacker

this guy just keeps going in circles!!! infairness wtf?

Ok, lets dance...

At which point did I or anyone else claim scientific credence for this poll (for any poll in boards), please quote me a post to back up your role as 'scientific police'.
I'll wait as you will have to actually read the thread now:D

thebouldwhacker

Oh wait is this what you mean???

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

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...

Sorry it must be this one

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

ahh... one can hardly encapsulate the true spectrum of beliefs here with a 7 option poll, think of it as a toy rather than the inqusition

Nope not that one either...... sorry I tried to help you, your on your own now..

Sure you dont want me to get the thunderdome guys to pm you, I can set it up... ye have soooooo much in commonn:pac::pac:

Hurry,Reboot

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

At which point did I or anyone else claim scientific credence for this poll (for any poll in boards), please quote me a post to back up your role as 'scientific police'.

You didnt.
Nor did I ever say you did.

I am pointing out (again) that the poll is biased, unscientific and of no real value.
You are calling me a troll for pointing this out.
If you agree with me, just say so.
Then you can move on and stop whinging.

thebouldwhacker

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?

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

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.

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

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.

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

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.

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

I am pointing out (again) that the poll is biased, unscientific and of no real value.
You are calling me a troll for pointing this out.
If you agree with me, just say so.
Then you can move on and stop whinging.

Ahh the tracks of a poster who is adding value to a thread... this however it how to add to a post while disagreeing on the value of a poll

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.

Sorry hurry but you lead in without anything to offer and sought confrontation. You had not read the thread, nor any others, I explaned where the poll came from and if you read the link you would see why I (and 68 voters) agree its worthwhile. No claims about why it is here nor about its scientific application. It was stated clearly at the start it was a role call of forum posted, which came from my own intrest.

So, no I do not believe you are posting here out of a ligit concern, you are trolling with intent. I will not agree with you that the poll has no value as 68 people voted and now I have a clear view of who has used this forum since it was set up. It has the same value as any other poll on boards.

As for your insistance that the first 4 Q's should not have been put up tell that to the people who voted for them. The result shows that yes people of faith do view the A&A forum and so is not simply an echo chamber. Unlike you I enjoy hearing opposing views on topics such as religion.

Now seeing as I will not bow to your unreasionable view that this poll is of no use, and as your argument holds no water nor relivance, unless you have something worth reading, I consider our communication finished.

Hurry,Reboot

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

Now seeing as I will not bow to your unreasionable view that this poll is of no use, and as your argument holds no water nor relivance, unless you have something worth reading, I consider our communication finished.

I think Ive shown clearly that the poll is biased, unscientific and of no real value. I have compared it to polls taken at a local Church or polls in a Man Utd fanzine, both reasonably (though not perfectly) accurate analogies.

In return, you do not address my specific points or attempt to deconstruct my analogies. Instead you call me a troll, question my motivations and post half-page rambling mega posts.

Yet I am the troll!!!

If only you had agreed with my initial point (or at least if you had not chosen to take issue with it), you could have saved yourself the bother and emerged with some credibility.

Zillah

Let's be honest, aside from showing the deviation between options 6 and 7 having a poll on the A&A forum is fairly pointless. Try After Hours and see how it goes. Even then it's far from representative, Boards clearly has a liberal/secular ethos*.

* Yes I said it

thebouldwhacker

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

I am the troll!!!.

Finally you agree!!

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

If only you had agreed with my initial point

Ahh now we are getting to the point, I didnt agree with you:rolleyes: why didnt you just start your posts with...

'Ok everyone you must agree with what I have to say then I'll move on' (you should make that your sig, kinda suits you:p)

Thats my point, I do not agree with you, I do think the poll is usefull, no, not scientific but as I have already shown that point had been made before you scraped along (back to the point that you didnt even have the decency to READ the thread before posting on it)

You want me and all here simply to agree with you. Sorry but we have a thing called free speech, I do not have to agree with you, and on this point I am not.
You can post your thoughts all you want but if you post on a thread without reading it first, and use language which isnt very friendly (and continue on this vein as you did) I will call you a troll as that is what I think you are:D

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Boards clearly has a liberal/secular ethos*.

* Yes I said it

Spit, spit, spit.

Think I'm going to outlaw that word in this forum.

robindch

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Yet I am the troll!!!

Well, for somebody with just 14 posts to their name, you've hit the ground running at almost exactly the same speed as a certain well-known poster from another forum.

You wouldn't happen to be married to a chick named Morwen by any chance, would you?

Sam Vimes

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

I think Ive shown clearly that the poll is biased, unscientific and of no real value.

Repeating it over and over is not the same as showing it.14% of people voted for the first 4 options and you are calling them pointless. Clearly you are wrong but that's never stopped anyone trolling before

Goduznt Xzst

Overblood wrote: »

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!!!).

Are you saying there's no possibility that on some planet there's a creature, similar to a horse, with a horn on its forehead that eats butterflies and poops rainbows... I think you'll agree that it's possible.

I think what you are failing to see is that people accept option number 6, but in reality they act like number 7 is true, due to its lack of relevance.

The same can be said of a lot of things, I've never personally done the maths to prove to myself that the earth is an oblique spheroid but I accept it.

I cannot say that God, the FSM or Xenu exists, but as this quandary has no relevance to my life, I live in manner that they don't.

Hurry,Reboot

robindch wrote: »

Well, for somebody with just 14 posts to their name, you've hit the ground running at almost exactly the same speed as a certain well-known poster from another forum.

You wouldn't happen to be married to a chick named Morwen by any chance, would you?

No, I am not....

And I find it amusing that so many posters here (including Moderators, it seems), despite the forums own charter, continue to play the man rather than the ball.

I have made 3 arguments:
1. The poll is unscientific - this, at least, has been conceded by whacker and i think is beyond reasonable argument.

2. It is biased - I am not sure if this has been directly conceded but as it is posted and held in the atheism and agnosticism forum, it must be, by its very nature, biased. The only way in which it could not be considered biased is if it could be shown that the footfall in this forum is broadly equally split as between believers and non-believers. That assertion would clearly be untrue. And the fact that options 1 and 2 got a vote each, and option 3 got 3/4 votes does not suddenly make the poll representative or unbiased.

3. It is of no real value. This is the most debatable. My view is that its only value is as a conversation starter (or perhaps as a debating tool between options 4,5,6 and 7 - but then why include options 1-3?). That, I contend, is "no real value". I have put forward two analogies of other hypothetical polls which would be conducted amongst a similarly biased/skewed sector of society and have shown how those polls would be inherently biased and of "no real value". Noone here has either addressed or deconstructed those analogies. Nor have they sought to show how your poll has value (other than as a conversation starter/other minor points).

So I make a number of reasoned and logical posts; yet my arguments are not addressed in any meaningful way. Instead I am labelled as a 'troll' and suggestions are made that I am somebody else.

So, who is the real troll here?

Funny, I always thought atheists prided themselves on reason, on logic, on science, on evidence......
Not on this forum, it seems.

Dades

Okay. We've established the poll is flawed - what poll isn't?
This was made clear (by the OP) from the outset. Just pick a number (or not) and move on.
Post if you've something relevant to add that hasn't been beaten to death already.

Hurry, Roboot - you've added nothing to this thread. Continue on this line and you might find one or both of your accounts blocked from here.

Hurry,Reboot

Dades wrote: »

Okay. We've established the poll is flawed - what poll isn't?
This was made clear (by the OP) from the outset. Just pick a number (or not) and move on..

Well, Im glad to hear someone addressing the argument (isn't that what these forums are for?).
But the OP did not admit any such thing from the outset; after a number of posts he said that it was unscientific. S/He continues to claim it is not biased and is of value. I disagree. I am trying to expand on the reasons that I disagree. Is that not allowed here?

I have made a reasoned argument which others have rebutted by calling me a troll. And I get threatened with a ban!!

Dades wrote: »

Hurry, Roboot - you've added nothing to this thread. Continue on this line and you might find one or both of your accounts blocked from here.

Well, obviously I disagree with the first point.
On the second, may I point out that I only have one account.
Another user of this computer has an account and that may be why you are mistaken.
You will also find that the other user (to my knowledge) has never posted on any Atheism and Agnosticism threads, its not his gig.
So, nice attempt at discrediting me by suggesting that I am being duplicitous. But it is entirely untrue.
More playing the man rather the ball.
You should read your charter.

Dades

If you have a problem with moderation - take it to PM.

If you don't want to be accused of using two accounts - don't post in the same thread under two names. Though I think we can consider that cleared up.

The bottom line is you've wasted a lot of space claiming that the poll was 'unscientific' when you were the only one to use that term. You crusade is pointless. If you spent more time here, you'd know there is a constant debate concerning answers 6 & 7, and clearly this thread is concerned with that. That the OP chose to include other options was to not exclude anyone from voting.

So if you want to stay in the thread, quit badgering everyone in here, answer the poll, and if you feel like it - state why you chose what you did.

Hurry,Reboot

Dades wrote: »

If you have a problem with moderation - take it to PM.

If you don't want to be accused of using two accounts - don't post in the same thread under two names. Though I think we can consider that cleared up..

Would you like to withdraw that last comment or substantiate it, please, thanks. It is entirely untrue*.
* - On one occasion because a communal computer "remembers" my colleagues user-name, I mistakenly posted under a different name. I noticed it in 2 seconds and deleted it within 10 seconds and reposted in my own name within one minute. Noone replied to it and I would be surprised if anyone saw it.

Dades wrote: »

The bottom line is you've wasted a lot of space claiming that the poll was 'unscientific' when you were the only one to use that term. You crusade is pointless..

While I did introduce that term, the poster of the poll has now stated that it is "unscientific". My assertion and his admission could have taken 2 lines. The fact that it did not was not my doing.

Dades wrote: »

If you spent more time here, you'd know there is a constant debate concerning answers 6 & 7, and clearly this thread is concerned with that. That the OP chose to include other options was to not exclude anyone from voting..

I'd prefer to hear the OP's reasons as to why s/he set up the thread rather than your interpretation. However, if the thread was set up to debate options 6 & 7, thats fine. But there is no real value added to that debate by adding options 1-3 (particlarly). I will remind you that my other contention was that the poll was of "no real value" and "biased".

Dades wrote: »

So if you want to stay in the thread, quit badgering everyone in here, answer the poll, and if you feel like it - state why you chose what you did.

How am I badgering? I raised a criticism of the poll on 3 grouinds. I expanded on those grounds. My arguments were not rebutted. I am called a troll. I am threatened with a ban. I am falsely accused of posting on the same thread under two different names. Yet, I am doing the badgering....?!!!

And finally, for what it's worth, I am a 5.

Sam Vimes

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

Would you like to withdraw that last comment or substantiate it, please, thanks. It is entirely untrue*.
* - On one occasion because a communal computer "remembers" my colleagues user-name, I mistakenly posted under a different name. I noticed it in 2 seconds and deleted it within 10 seconds and reposted in my own name within one minute. Noone replied to it and I would be surprised if anyone saw it.

Mods can see deleted posts

thebouldwhacker

Mods can this 'debate' and all concerned posts be moved to a new thread in the forum? Its obvious that the poster is only trying to hijack the thread and kill any kind of conversation which is/was taking part. I would be more than happy to continue a direct discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of boards polls but I think it deserves(?) its own thread... it could be called 'I want you to agree with me'

He is yet to put forward any kind of worth while post so this I think (not second guessing the all powerful mods decision) hes lucky not to be 'moved on' for want of a better term...

Rev Hellfire

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Mods can see deleted posts

Their powers are... dare I say it... god like !

thebouldwhacker

:eek:
Blasphemy... lucky that law isnt passed yet:D

Sam Vimes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Their powers are... dare I say it... god like !

And I don't think it's a coincidence that mod rhymes with....

Dades

Hurry,Reboot - last warning.

Quit (1) derailing the thread with this repetitive search for a confession, and (2) questioning mods decision IN the thread.

thebouldwhacker

well I believe there is only one true mod, all others are false mods. There are many names of for mods but only one true MOD. Boards was started by mod, all we have, see and read is because of the mod. Anyone who goes against the law of mod will feel the true power......

Hurry,Reboot

Dades wrote: »

Hurry,Reboot - last warning.

Quit (1) derailing the thread with this repetitive search for a confession, and (2) questioning mods decision IN the thread.

I will gladly accept the criticism that I am taking the thread off-topic and humbly withdraw. I wouldn't disagree with whacker's suggestion above but that's your choice.

However, before I withdraw, I expect a withdrawl of your assertion that I was "posting in the same thread under two names". I have been transparent about this yet you have not acknowledged this. We all know what that statement suggests (duplicity; posting in support of one's own argument etc...) and nothing could be further from the truth. I have no problem taking this issue in PM or elsewhere but, as you initially posted these criticisms/insinuations publically, I think it is only reasonable that you withdraw or at least qualify your assertion that I am posting under two names in public also.

Dades wrote: »

Continue on this line and you might find one or both of your accounts blocked from here. .

Dades wrote: »

If you don't want to be accused of using two accounts - don't post in the same thread under two names. Though I think we can consider that cleared up...

robindch

Hi, Hurry,Reboot - this is your other friendly A+A mod tuning in for a minute.

Hurry,Reboot wrote: »

it is only reasonable that you withdraw or at least qualify your assertion that I am posting under two names in public also.

If you want to discuss moderation of any forum, you may do so in the Help Desk. Further posts which are not relevant to this thread will be deleted.

Dades

Just to pre-empt Helpdesk which is a last option...

Dades wrote:

If you don't want to be accused of using two accounts - don't post in the same thread under two names. Though I think we can consider that cleared up

Hurry,Reboot - the bolded text above was me accepting your explanation some time back, so we can all put down Legal Speak for Dummies and move on.

Asiaprod

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Their powers are... dare I say it... god like !

You may indeed say it (the 3rd friendly ?)
Both account are temp closed till a certain discrepancy is cleared up to my satisfaction; I need the OP to qualify his assertion that he is not posting under two names in public.

thebouldwhacker

Anyway back to the topic:D

I certainly believe in an interventionest mod!

I'm after getting the thumbs up to post it in the christinaty forum... but I'm not sure its worth it after all this:rolleyes:

aidan24326

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.

Well in terms of the god of christianity then I'm probably a number 7 also. He not only doesn't exist but cannot exist. However, that wasn't the question.

We can rule out the god of christianity but we can't say with 100% certainty that there is no god/creator of any kind. It doesn't appear likely or even necessary, and personally I'd be pretty sure there isn't one (or more). However this still doesn't equate to absolute certainty. There are few things we can be certain of.

EDIT: I picked 6 in the poll.

thebouldwhacker

Ah what the hell... I'm gonna post it in the christianity forum:D

Job done

Dades

Reagrding 6 v 7, the problem is there is there's no way of "knowing" there is no, say, Christian God any different from "knowing" about any completely undefined entity.

I think to choose number 7, you have to define "knowing" as something less than 100%.

This isn't necessarily an issue. We "know" things every day of our lives that aren't as clear cut as a strong atheist's lack of belief in gods. The problem arises when we apply our own supposed critical thinking to the idea that we "know" something untestable.

thebouldwhacker

Some people seem to be caught up by specific religions definitions of 'god' christian etc. Its a general question I think, I guess it boils down to your own definition to an extent. Mine would be was the big bang a 'natural' event independent of a third party and governed by physics or was there some kind of intelligent intervention that lead to where we are today. I dont know what happened before the big bang ergo I'm a 6. That is only my take on it, others will apply their own interpretation....

Zillah

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Their powers are... dare I say it... god like !

*groan*

Rev Hellfire

Zillah wrote: »

*groan*

Don't worry I'm here all week, plenty more of those classics

Undergod

Damn, I picked 5. I'm not with the cool kids.

robindch

Undergod wrote: »

Damn, I picked 5. I'm not with the cool kids.

Wish I could say there was an ungod out there watching your every move. But of course, there isn't.

thebouldwhacker

robindch wrote: »

Wish I could say there was an ungod out there watching your every move. But of course, there isn't.

Ahh robindch, dont be like that, here is the answer, def an ungod and always watching, go in peace......

CLICK HERE FOR CELESTIAL COMFORT

CLICK HERE FOR YOUR CHURCH ON EARTH


:rolleyes:(just look up when you feel alone)

Tar.Aldarion

7, because there is nothing I would/could consider a god.

Using somebody elses definition I would have to be a 6.9 recurring.

Mark Hamill

I live my life as a 7, but I argue as a 6. I am as sure that god doesn't really exist as i am sure there Bilbo Baggins doesn't really exist, but as someone with a scientific mind, I will allow the possibility for the sake of argument.

Spiritoftheseventies

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

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.'

actually picked it because my birthday is on that day. wonder why everyone picked 6.