• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debate Politics Religion Census

What religion are you


  • Total voters
    110
At first glance it seems atheists are a majority, until you add together the schisms of Christianity. Even so, atheists appear overrepresented here.
 
Jedi were the sixth most popular religion in Britain at one time, but they too are in decline lately.
 
By definition, you have no clue what you're talking about, but you're also liberal, so there you go.

No by definition he's an agnostic .... I don't know is a perfectly valid response. If someone asked me "Do you believe Cephus eyes brown," I would answer "I don't know" that doesn't mean I believe they are brown or I don't believe they are brown .... I DON'T KNOW ...

If someone says "I don't know whether or not a God exists" that person is an agnostic, by definition.
 
No by definition he's an agnostic .... I don't know is a perfectly valid response. If someone asked me "Do you believe Cephus eyes brown," I would answer "I don't know" that doesn't mean I believe they are brown or I don't believe they are brown .... I DON'T KNOW ...

If someone says "I don't know whether or not a God exists" that person is an agnostic, by definition.

Yes, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response to a question that isn't being asked. The question at hand is "do you believe in a god?" "I don't know" is not "yes", thus he's an atheist. He's also an agnostic. Agnostic isn't a mid-point between atheism and theism, it's the answer to a wholly different question on the availability of knowledge.
 
By definition I'm agnostic. Deal with it. xD

Actually theism and gnosticsm refer to different things. Agnostic/gnostic is about a declaration of knowledge. You cannot know gods exist (agnostic) or you know gods exist (gnostic). Atheism/theism refers to belief. You do not believe in a god (atheist) or you believe in a god (theist). By what you have claimed you'd be an agnostic atheist, which is one of the most common forms of atheist.
 
No by definition he's an agnostic .... I don't know is a perfectly valid response. If someone asked me "Do you believe Cephus eyes brown," I would answer "I don't know" that doesn't mean I believe they are brown or I don't believe they are brown .... I DON'T KNOW ...

If someone says "I don't know whether or not a God exists" that person is an agnostic, by definition.

I don't know whether or not gods exist, I make no claim to knowledge. But I'm an atheist. Why? Because I do not believe in gods.
 
Yes, "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response to a question that isn't being asked. The question at hand is "do you believe in a god?" "I don't know" is not "yes", thus he's an atheist. He's also an agnostic. Agnostic isn't a mid-point between atheism and theism, it's the answer to a wholly different question on the availability of knowledge.

No it isn't, you can think that it's possible to know whether or not a God exists, but just don't know ... it's totally possible to know whether or not you have brown eyes ... but I simple don't know.
 
No it isn't, you can think that it's possible to know whether or not a God exists, but just don't know ... it's totally possible to know whether or not you have brown eyes ... but I simple don't know.

Do you have a problem with basic English because you entirely ignored everything I said and just repeated your original assertion. What you just said here is entirely irrelevant to BELIEF ABOUT GODS.

I don't want to have to explain it again, but I'm sure I will.
 
agnostic atheist here. To answer to the poll question of what religion I am, I do not have one. I will vote for atheism, do not try to construe this as claiming or admitting that atheism is a religion due to poor wording of the poll options however.

To address the current back and forth squabble over the definition of agnostic versus atheism - I concur with Ikari's and Cephus' statements above. The words each define a different aspect, one is the belief itself (atheism), the other is whether or not knowledge is possible (agnosticism). These terms are NOT mutually exclusive, and do often go hand in hand. As mentioned already, agnosticism is neither some wishy washy middle ground nor an apathetic stance between atheism and theism - it addresses knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible. It has no direct bearing on belief (indirectly it may effect belief, such as in this statement: "I do not think it is possible to know with certainty whether a god or higher power exists, and since conclusive evidence is not available I have no reason to believe in one").
 
agnostic atheist here. To answer to the poll question of what religion I am, I do not have one. I will vote for atheism, do not try to construe this as claiming or admitting that atheism is a religion due to poor wording of the poll options however.

To address the current back and forth squabble over the definition of agnostic versus atheism - I concur with Ikari's and Cephus' statements above. The words each define a different aspect, one is the belief itself (atheism), the other is whether or not knowledge is possible (agnosticism). These terms are NOT mutually exclusive, and do often go hand in hand. As mentioned already, agnosticism is neither some wishy washy middle ground nor an apathetic stance between atheism and theism - it addresses knowledge, and whether knowledge is possible. It has no direct bearing on belief (indirectly it may effect belief, such as in this statement: "I do not think it is possible to know with certainty whether a god or higher power exists, and since conclusive evidence is not available I have no reason to believe in one").

To be honest, I'd argue that nobody on the planet has any knowledge of the existence of a god since knowledge requires some basis in fact and thus, some evidence. No one has produced any demonstrable evidence for the factual existence of any god yet, thus, no one can legitimately claim to have any knowledge that one does. They are just people trying to lend credence to their claims of faith in a god, nothing more.
 
Do you have a problem with basic English because you entirely ignored everything I said and just repeated your original assertion. What you just said here is entirely irrelevant to BELIEF ABOUT GODS.

I don't want to have to explain it again, but I'm sure I will.

Yes it is relevant ... I don't know is a response to "do you believe in God," agnostic is not an answer to whether or not it's POSSIBLE to know if God exists, it's an answer to "DOES God exist," if the answer is "I don't know" then you're agnostic.
 
Actually theism and gnosticsm refer to different things. Agnostic/gnostic is about a declaration of knowledge. You cannot know gods exist (agnostic) or you know gods exist (gnostic). Atheism/theism refers to belief. You do not believe in a god (atheist) or you believe in a god (theist). By what you have claimed you'd be an agnostic atheist, which is one of the most common forms of atheist.

I voted other. I'm agnostic.

And when I say "I don't know" I mean "I don't know".

Not "I don't know but I believe X".

I think it's as likely that there is a god as that there isn't.
 
Yes it is relevant ... I don't know is a response to "do you believe in God," agnostic is not an answer to whether or not it's POSSIBLE to know if God exists, it's an answer to "DOES God exist," if the answer is "I don't know" then you're agnostic.

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+atheist&oq=define+atheist&aqs=chrome.0.57j5j0l2j62l2.2266j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&fp=8c1e686b48550523&q=define+agnostic&safe=off

and to make it even simpler so you do not have to click on the link:

ag·nos·tic
/agˈnästik/
Noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

that completely contradicts this statement of yours "agnostic is not an answer to whether or not it's POSSIBLE to know if God exists"
 
To be honest, I'd argue that nobody on the planet has any knowledge of the existence of a god since knowledge requires some basis in fact and thus, some evidence. No one has produced any demonstrable evidence for the factual existence of any god yet, thus, no one can legitimately claim to have any knowledge that one does. They are just people trying to lend credence to their claims of faith in a god, nothing more.

I would agree.
 
Agnostic with Deist leanings. And maybe a little Pagan too. :wink:

I'm not atheist....
I can't say there is a God, I can't say there isn't a God. If a God(s) exist, I do not believe it/they exist as is portrayed by current Christian beliefs.

:popcorn2:
 
I voted other. I'm agnostic.

And when I say "I don't know" I mean "I don't know".

Not "I don't know but I believe X".

I think it's as likely that there is a god as that there isn't.

I suppose there could be agnostic agnostic, but if you aren't reading religious texts and praying or participating in religious dogma or whatever; chances are you don't believe in a god.
 
But if you aren't reading religious texts and praying or participating in religious dogma or whatever; chances are you don't believe in a god.

I don't think that participating in religious behavior is a necessary condition for believing that a god could potentially exist while at the same time believing that a god could potentially not exist.

Obviously if the sky parted tomorrow and "THE GOD" appeared and made it perfectly clear that "X" religion had it right I'd get on board with that religion pretty quickly.

But absent something like that, and with the understanding that I'm simply entertaining the idea for argument's sake that some god does exist, I see no compelling reason to believe that any particular religion, or any religion at all as far as it goes, has it "right" in terms of what that god has done in the past, what that god may want or expect from us, what interst that god may have in humanity, or anything else.

Again, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a god, I find it just as likely that he "created" us, because that's what gods do, and then moved on to the next project, and hasn't given us a second thought since.

My five-year-old colors in complete coloring books because that's what five-year-olds do. He doesn't feel any need to go back and tinker with his already completed coloring books, keep tabs on their morals and behavior, expect them to worship him, or any of the other things religious people expect from, and believe they owe, their creator.

I think it's perfectly possible that god can exist completely seperate from and outside of religion, and that religion can exist completely seperate from and outside of god.
 
The older I get the more liberal Christian I get. I was raised a very fundamentalist. As I aged I slipped away, now I am United Church of Christ. I think there I will stay.
 
I don't think that participating in religious behavior is a necessary condition for believing that a god could potentially exist while at the same time believing that a god could potentially not exist.

I think that if one believes in a god, they do the things required of belief. If one does not, chances are they don't believe in gods...or are lazy.

Obviously if the sky parted tomorrow and "THE GOD" appeared and made it perfectly clear that "X" religion had it right I'd get on board with that religion pretty quickly.

So would I, but until that point I don't believe in gods.

But absent something like that, and with the understanding that I'm simply entertaining the idea for argument's sake that some god does exist, I see no compelling reason to believe that any particular religion, or any religion at all as far as it goes, has it "right" in terms of what that god has done in the past, what that god may want or expect from us, what interst that god may have in humanity, or anything else.

You may not follow any given line of organized religion, but a belief would warrant action on some spiritual level. You wouldn't do nothing, doing nothing is a sign of disbelief.

Again, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a god, I find it just as likely that he "created" us, because that's what gods do, and then moved on to the next project, and hasn't given us a second thought since.

More deist sort of line of thought. But they are spiritual in their own ways as well.

I think it's perfectly possible that god can exist completely seperate from and outside of religion, and that religion can exist completely seperate from and outside of god.

With gods anything is possible since they are immeasurable quantities.
 
I'm surprised people are taking the atheist choice considering I've been repeatedly told that atheism isn't a religion.

Other isn't a religion either. But "other" and "atheist" are useful words in describing someone's religious views. So they were put on the list. The same way that bald might be on a poll of hair colors, yet that doesn't make bald a hair color. It's just a useful word in describing your hair situation.
 
Yes it is relevant ... I don't know is a response to "do you believe in God," agnostic is not an answer to whether or not it's POSSIBLE to know if God exists, it's an answer to "DOES God exist," if the answer is "I don't know" then you're agnostic.

If you do not actively believe in any gods, you are, by definition, an atheist. Learn to use the English language properly.
 
If you do not actively believe in any gods, you are, by definition, an atheist. Learn to use the English language properly.

Atheist means you believe there is no God .... Agnostic means you don't know.
 
Back
Top Bottom