| Atheist |    |
37.3% | [ 961 ] |
| Protestant | |
17.4% | [ 448 ] |
| Catholic | |
14.3% | [ 368 ] |
| Hindu | |
1.3% | [ 34 ] |
| Muslim | |
1.9% | [ 49 ] |
| Jew | |
2.4% | [ 62 ] |
| Buddhist | |
5.4% | [ 139 ] |
| Greek Orthodox | |
0.8% | [ 20 ] |
| Pagan | |
14.7% | [ 378 ] |
| Egyptian | |
4.4% | [ 114 ] |
 |
what a bad poll, no taoism or agnosticism...
|
|
|
"Vryko Lakas" "Redem" He probably meant around 300 BC, when the NT was canonised. *sound of needle being ripped from record* .... f**k. Can I save some face by claiming sleep deprivation? >_> |
 |
|
|
I believe in the some rules of Evolution which is the three laws. Adapt, Move or Die but thats it I believe the God created us but I respect everyones choice in the matter. Because thats what makes us human, our opinions!!!!
|
|
|
"Peacefulblacksmith" I believe in the some rules of Evolution which is the three laws. Adapt, Move or Die but thats it I believe the God created us but I respect everyones choice in the matter. Because thats what makes us human, our opinions!!!! Technically, it's our genetics that make us human. |
|
|
|
"Colonel Officer G" For me, evolution is a lot to swallow. I just don't understand the logic of it all. It is much easier to accept the logic that there was a Creator. Plus I feel much safer knowing that we aren't all just a cosmic accident.  So, in other words, it's easier and makes you feel better to just put a stamp on it that says "Godditit" than trying to understand it for yourself? Also, what's so logical about there being a Creator that just poofed us into existence? Also, we aren't necessarily an "accident" although mutations are random, natural selection is not. That is, unless you are talking about the Big Bang, which doesn't really have anything to do with Evolution because Evolution doesn't talk about how life began, merely of how life changes and evolves. http://dragcave.ath.cx/user/35432 |
|
|
|
"Karyn -Green- Tee" I used to read the Creation magazine answersingenesis.org and it explains heaps of things that help to discredit evolution as a theory. There was information about monkeys and dinosaurs and things like that and I found it really helpful. Oh really? Do go on. What was it about "monkeys and dinosaurs and things like that" that convinced you to believe that God simply poofed everything into existence? http://dragcave.ath.cx/user/35432 |
|
|
Typical Claim: The universe is too complex, therefore their must be a creator.
Problem with claim: 1. A creator would have to be more complex than the creation, therefore the creator must be more complex than the universe. 2. If the universe is too complex to have always existed, then the creator would also be too complex to have always existed. 3. The only way around this is to claim that the creator is not too complex to have always existed. 4. This, of course, means that the universe is then also not too complex to have always existed, and thus there is no need to invoke a creator of any kind. So, any rebuttals? Corrections? |
|
|
|
Fact!!!!
|
|
|
"Starscourge" "Neurotheist" "Koravin" "Neurotheist" But again, it's a theory, a theory I've never perceived for myself, ergo, I do not incorporate it into my reality, yet... And they still have yet to create life from nonlife, so there's no basis for evolution as the genesis of mankind, yet. And once again, all of this doesn't mean that there is no god, just that the bible is obviously NOT how it happened. Abiogenesis =/= evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it is just the process by which new species come into being. No, evolution is not proof there is no god, it is only proof that the Genesis story is false. Forgive me if I'm reading too much into things, but you seem to think evolution is okay for 'lower creatures' (a term I despise, for it is inaccurate) but not for humans. Perhaps your desire for humanity to be 'special' is clouding your judgment? I don't believe China exists, at least, not with 100%, for I have never perceived it. But I know the idea of China exists within my mind. Perceptual perception is not the same thing as perception. In fact, because of the inherent trickiness of perception I'm NEVER 100% sure about ANYTHING, because when your beliefs contradict your perception you put yourself in a very delicate situation, one that I try to avoid, I think. It's all about the sureity of it all. Ya, we're arguing the same point about evolution at this point, that it does not show in any way where life originated, AND whether or not life originated via a primordial pool or not does not in any way show the existence or nonexistence of god, and since we agree, why are we still talking about it? No, I don't think evolution is okay at all, it seems sound in theory, but my sureity of it all isn't quite enough for me to wholly claim it as true within my reality, for while I have heard many many things supporting it, I have also heard many many things denying it (E.G. polonium particles) so my sureity isn't to the point where I'll fully accept the theory, but I will recognize it as the best theory in rotation. I don't desire for humanity to be special, I'm not even 100% sure humanity exists, for all I know I might not even be a human tripping on some serious mushrooms. All I know is what I perceive, and that all perceptions and particularly perceptual perceptions are inherently tricky, so what I believe is pretty irrelevant. All I have is my brain and my perception of reality, nothing special about that. Solipsist, huh? Here's an idea: Go jump off a cliff. After all, if that cliff isn't really there, you have nothing to fear! no, not a solipsist, and solipsism is more complicated than that. look at my name will ya. |
|
|
|
Okay, Neuro: one of your sentences must obviously explain the other.
"Neurotheist" Perceptual perception is not the same thing as perception. "Neurotheist" I don't desire for humanity to be special, I'm not even 100% sure humanity exists, for all I know I might not even be a human tripping on some serious mushrooms. "Neurotheist" no, not a solipsist, and solipsism is more complicated than that. "Wikipedia" Denial of the materialist existence, in itself, is not enough to be a solipsist. Possibly the most controversial feature of the solipsistic world view is the denial of the existence of other minds. We can never directly know another's mental stability. Qualia, or personal experience, are private and incorrigible. Another person's experience can be known only by analogy. ... Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several world views whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism |
|
|
"Katherine1" Typical Claim: The universe is too complex, therefore their must be a creator. Problem with claim: 1. A creator would have to be more complex than the creation, therefore the creator must be more complex than the universe. 2. If the universe is too complex to have always existed, then the creator would also be too complex to have always existed. 3. The only way around this is to claim that the creator is not too complex to have always existed. 4. This, of course, means that the universe is then also not too complex to have always existed, and thus there is no need to invoke a creator of any kind. So, any rebuttals? Corrections? Huh you do realise whereever you found this or if you created it it matters not you have simply just won this argument but i urge you not to impose on those who will be in denile |
|
|
|
"Katherine1" Typical Claim: The universe is too complex, therefore their must be a creator. Problem with claim: 1. A creator would have to be more complex than the creation, therefore the creator must be more complex than the universe. 2. If the universe is too complex to have always existed, then the creator would also be too complex to have always existed. 3. The only way around this is to claim that the creator is not too complex to have always existed. 4. This, of course, means that the universe is then also not too complex to have always existed, and thus there is no need to invoke a creator of any kind. So, any rebuttals? Corrections? The generic theistic catch-all rebuttals. "You're going to burn in hell, repent sinner!!!" and "God is beyond the limits of your logic." |
|
|
"Redem" "Katherine1" Typical Claim: The universe is too complex, therefore their must be a creator. Problem with claim: 1. A creator would have to be more complex than the creation, therefore the creator must be more complex than the universe. 2. If the universe is too complex to have always existed, then the creator would also be too complex to have always existed. 3. The only way around this is to claim that the creator is not too complex to have always existed. 4. This, of course, means that the universe is then also not too complex to have always existed, and thus there is no need to invoke a creator of any kind. So, any rebuttals? Corrections? The generic theistic catch-all rebuttals. "You're going to burn in hell, repent sinner!!!" and "God is beyond the limits of your logic." Don't forget technique 42 |
|
|
|
"Redem" The generic theistic catch-all rebuttals. "You're going to burn in hell, repent sinner!!!" and "God is beyond the limits of your logic." You know, I actually haven't heard the first example much from anyone but Atheists building a strawman. Second one and technique 42 I've heard a lot though |
|
