PDA

View Full Version : What are ya!? Poll on Religious Tendencies



Basil
06-04-2007, 05:46 PM
OK let's gooooooooooooo with another survey as we probe our membership.

Basil
06-04-2007, 08:55 PM
We had 39 voters in the smoking poll (41 minus a couple of hydras/ clowns). It would be great if we could approach that number with this one.

Aaron Guthrie
07-04-2007, 12:08 AM
On the subject of religion questions, this is the ABS instructions (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/F0857E50F9F0478CCA257168000CA83B?opendocument) on how to answer said question in the 2006 census


HOW TO ANSWER

Q19 Answering this question is OPTIONAL.

If a person's religion is an Eastern Catholic religion such as Maronite Catholic, Melkite Catholic or Ukrainian Catholic, write the name of the religion in the ‘Other - please specify’ box.

People who have non-theistic religious beliefs or other life philosophies should write their response in the ‘Other - please specify’ box.

If a person identifies with no religion at all, mark ‘No religion’.The bit which caught my attention and influenced my answer was "other life philosophies."

Basil
07-04-2007, 12:29 AM
The bit which caught my attention and influenced my answer was "other life philosophies."

But you didn't vote!

I seriously hope this isn't because I couldn't get 'other life philosophies' on to the options, which I did try - character length 100 exceeded :doh:

When creating the poll, my intended delineation incidentally was the acknowledgement of a deity in the broad and generally accepted sense of the word. Whereas paying homage to an ageing tree stump, called Skye in Nimbin didn't really qualify as religion in my intended poll.

Caaarn, Aaron. Pick a box!

Aaron Guthrie
07-04-2007, 12:38 AM
I tend note to vote in online polls. Aside from my quirks I have good reason not to vote in this poll. I consider that "Is there a god?" to be both an unimportant and confusing (the concept and implications of a god) question.

It would seem inconsistent to think the question both confusing and unimportant but yet still answer the question. Denying the question means one can't answer it. The only option I would be inclined to give a tick to would be "Who cares?

Basil
07-04-2007, 12:42 AM
I tend note to vote in online polls
The plot thickens! Is this an unearthed poll question in itself?


Aside from my quirks
I love a man who acknowledge his quirks! I stopped counting when I reached 100 (of them) although I keep tabs on all of them.


I have good reason not to vote in this poll
OK, I'll respect that. What is it?


I consider that "Is there a god?" to be both an unimportant and confusing (the concept and implications of a god) question. It would seem inconsistent to think the question both confusing and unimportant but yet still answer the question.
God (usage intended) I love this place!

Thanks for your answer, Aaron. I hope you're not insulted by mine (very happy to delete anything considered offensive). Certainly no intention. But given the topic at hand and our respective quirks, who the hell (usage intended) knows what could happen!

Aaron Guthrie
07-04-2007, 12:57 AM
The plot thickens! Is this an unearthed poll question in itself?"Does Mangafranga vote in online polls?" might be good for a trivia question, but I don't think it is good for a poll question.



Thanks for your answer, Aaron. I hope you're not insulted by mine (very happy to delete anything considered offensive).No, and not sure why I would be.

I added a bit to my last post just before you replied btw.

Rincewind
07-04-2007, 10:06 AM
Wording of option 1 changed slightly at the thread starter's request. Please PM me if you want to change your vote as a result of this wording change.

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2007, 10:26 PM
I need an option for "beyond atheist". :lol:

Rincewind
08-04-2007, 10:30 PM
I need an option for "beyond atheist". :lol:

Would "areligiously fervent, dyed-in-the-wool, mega-atheist" suffice?

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2007, 11:05 PM
Would "areligiously fervent, dyed-in-the-wool, mega-atheist" suffice?

Actually not quite. For starters I'm really not that fervent about it and don't devote that much energy to it except for the odd debate/flamewar on here and elsewhere - it just happens to be the way of things that the concept of existence contains empirical undertones incompatible with the concept of an all-powerful God, and hence that nearly all of Christianity is guilty of a category error. I'm not sure if there really is a label for this view.

Garvinator
08-04-2007, 11:06 PM
How about devote atheist?

Axiom
08-04-2007, 11:15 PM
comitted atheist?

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2007, 11:18 PM
You mean "devout"? But I'm not. I have come across "religious atheists" who worship Richard Dawkins or stage silly anti-Christian demonstrations that nobody cares less about, and who obsess themselves with their anti-Christianity, and I am not one of them. Generally, I really couldn't care. Unlike some so-called "devout atheists", I have no interest in harming Christianity at all, provided that it absolutely gets its filthy hands off (a) the State and (b) all non-consenting underage persons. Of course, any time it takes even a cent of my money via the tax system, I reserve the right to destroy it.

Rincewind
08-04-2007, 11:22 PM
Actually not quite. For starters I'm really not that fervent about it and don't devote that much energy to it except for the odd debate/flamewar on here and elsewhere - it just happens to be the way of things that the concept of existence contains empirical undertones incompatible with the concept of an all-powerful God, and hence that nearly all of Christianity is guilty of a category error. I'm not sure if there really is a label for this view.

So you hold the view that the existence of all gods can be disproved empirically? Perhaps an affirmative atheist.

My position is more one of "well there is no evidence for supernatural, spiritual or religious experience and I refuse to accept it on faith alone". This is what I call the fairies-at-the-end-of-the-garden position. Perhaps they do exist, but I'm going to need more than fanciful stories to be convinced.

Actually my position is a bit stronger than this for existent religions I've looked at, as they they are invariably flawed and most contain components which I find morally objectionable which leads me to think they cannot be divinely inspired. But I don't discount the possibility of a new religion (maybe just new to me) which might really be the one true religion. :)

Kevin Bonham
08-04-2007, 11:27 PM
So you hold the view that the existence of all gods can be disproved empirically?

No, I hold the view that the concept "God exists" is a contradiction in terms given the meaning of the term "exists", and is both false and meaningless before we even get near empiricism. This argument applies only to all-powerful Gods; for other sorts of Gods we can move onto empiricism.

For the record I also hold that empiricism provides no evidence, but since it also provides no evidence that 2+2 = 69783454623i, this is really not surprising.

Rincewind
08-04-2007, 11:33 PM
No, I hold the view that the concept "God exists" is a contradiction in terms given the meaning of the term "exists", and is both false and meaningless before we even get near empiricism. This argument applies only to all-powerful Gods; for other sorts of Gods we can move onto empiricism.

Let me try to rearrange into a form that makes sense to me...

You hold that there exists a deductive philosophical argument which proves via contradiction that an all-powerful god cannot exist?

Basil
08-04-2007, 11:37 PM
If this turns into another Clock Not Adding Increment, I'm calling the cops

Rincewind
08-04-2007, 11:42 PM
If this turns into another Clock Not Adding Increment, I'm calling the cops

Relax, just interested in Kevin's position in a way that I can understand. And besides... we are the cops. :)

Basil
08-04-2007, 11:45 PM
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:

Kevin Bonham
09-04-2007, 12:11 AM
You hold that there exists a deductive philosophical argument which proves via contradiction that an all-powerful god cannot exist?

Yes, although whether I'm up to framing it explicitly is another question.

I should have been more specific and noted that no particular all-powerful God "exists". Whether it is logically possible for an all-powerful God to "exist" provided it is not specified as any particular example of the genre may not be so clear.

The problem as I see it is that the concept "existence" is empirical - something exists if it can, at least in theory, be inferred from its empirical effects on something else. But the existence of any specific all-powerful God can never be thus inferred, because the evidence for such a God could never be distinguished from the evidence for a different kind of all-powerful God pretending to be it, for reasons that would of course be beyond our comprehension. Therefore no specific proposed model of all-powerful God "exists".

Aaron Guthrie
09-04-2007, 03:24 AM
Yes, although whether I'm up to framing it explicitly is another question.

I should have been more specific and noted that no particular all-powerful God "exists". Whether it is logically possible for an all-powerful God to "exist" provided it is not specified as any particular example of the genre may not be so clear.

The problem as I see it is that the concept "existence" is empirical - something exists if it can, at least in theory, be inferred from its empirical effects on something else. But the existence of any specific all-powerful God can never be thus inferred, because the evidence for such a God could never be distinguished from the evidence for a different kind of all-powerful God pretending to be it, for reasons that would of course be beyond our comprehension. Therefore no specific proposed model of all-powerful God "exists".This is what I understand your position to be. It is logically possible that it is the case that there exists an all powerful being. However it is not possible to know any of the properties of such a being beyond that it is all powerful. So we cannot say of such a being if it wishes us to be Christian or Muslim. Is this roughly right?

Kevin Bonham
09-04-2007, 03:41 AM
This is what I understand your position to be. It is logically possible that it is the case that there exists an all powerful being. However it is not possible to know any of the properties of such a being beyond that it is all powerful. So we cannot say of such a being if it wishes us to be Christian or Muslim. Is this roughly right?

I'd only say it may be logically possible. I suspect if I think about it for another few minutes I'll come up with some kind of argument involving the difficulties of distinguishing between an all-powerful being and a nearly all-powerful being that renders the statement "an all-powerful being exists" just as false as "a specific all-powerful being, the Christian God as defined by Jono, exists".

The critical issue is the being's ability to create deceptions at will. If someone says "I believe a being exists which is all powerful except that it has no ability to alter the perceptions or memories of its creations" then I'll admit that as a logically meaningful, if empirically very likely to be false concept, and ask them what their empirical evidence for it is.

"How do you know there's not an all-powerful God?" strikes me as one of those no-brainers like "How do you know you're not a brain in a vat?"

Aaron Guthrie
09-04-2007, 04:32 AM
I'd only say it may be logically possible.OK, I was unsure on this point because of your previous posts. What I was interested in (tonight anyway) was if you were providing an argument about knowledge or about logical possibility. I think it is about knowledge.

I think what you are providing is an attempt to show either that A)if god we can't say anything about him anyway or B)"god" is a meaningless concept or something close to one of these two (some kind of logical positivist argument maybe?) Of course you do leave open the option that it is logically impossible that there exists a god.

Spiny Norman
09-04-2007, 10:32 AM
Sounds to me like we're infringing on the question of whether God (any God) can have properties, and if so, whether God can lack any properties ... and therefore, whether a God who lacks properties is actually God at all ... :eek:

Desmond
09-04-2007, 06:49 PM
If this turns into another Clock Not Adding Increment, I'm calling the copsI'm glad that you brought this up, because I think something was missed in that debate: Is 0 sec/move an increment?
[/trolling]

Aaron Guthrie
09-04-2007, 07:33 PM
I'm glad that you brought this up, because I think something was missed in that debate: Is 0 sec/move an increment?
[/trolling]Any working clock should be adding -1 second increments 60 times a second
[/troll feeding]

Basil
17-04-2007, 04:10 PM
Caaaaaaarn Bill & Denis et al! Let's have ya!

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2007, 06:22 PM
Caaaaaaarn Bill & Denis et al! Let's have ya!

I suppose a vote from Jono is hardly necessary? :eek:

Basil
17-04-2007, 06:30 PM
I suppose a vote from Jono is hardly necessary? :eek:
My bad! Caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarn Jono.

Rincewind
19-04-2007, 11:59 PM
Last one from the site Mac posted earlier tonight.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

Desmond
20-04-2007, 09:22 AM
I like the third-last panel of that cartoon, where the arms appear as devil horns.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 04:52 PM
I need an option for "beyond atheist". :lol:
I've already suggested Christophobic misotheist :P

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 04:54 PM
The critical issue is the being's ability to create deceptions at will.
Ah, that explains your antitheistic posts :P

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 04:54 PM
I suppose a vote from Jono is hardly necessary? :eek:
Heh :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 05:03 PM
You mean "devout"? But I'm not. I have come across "religious atheists" who worship Richard Dawkins or stage silly anti-Christian demonstrations that nobody cares less about, and who obsess themselves with their anti-Christianity, and I am not one of them.

Definitely a point in your favour.


Generally, I really couldn't care. Unlike some so-called "devout atheists", I have no interest in harming Christianity at all, provided that it absolutely gets its filthy hands off (a) the State

I.e. as long as it's totally underground so the public arena is left to the atheists?


and (b) all non-consenting underage persons.

What, you'd remove children from Christian parents?


Of course, any time it takes even a cent of my money via the tax system, I reserve the right to destroy it.

Hmm, as long as this goes both ways. Jefferson wrote (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/draft1779.htm):


That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness

Sam
20-04-2007, 07:05 PM
You know Jono,Im still trying to figure out who is the biggest nut case..you or Axiom. Its a tough call. :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 07:13 PM
You know Sam, who's the bigger nutcase, the nutcase or the one who engages alleged nutcase? :P

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2007, 12:15 AM
I.e. as long as it's totally underground so the public arena is left to the atheists?

You may consider that something being prevented from misusing the State to propagate itself alone drives it "totally underground", but could any other posters holding such a bizarre and unsubstantiated view please identify themselves right now so I can decide whether to give it the time of day?


What, you'd remove children from Christian parents?

I don't think a parent should be allowed to force a child to attend a religious service that that child objects to going to, that's for sure. If persistent enough I'd consider this grounds for the child to seek some kind of quasi-divorce from his/her parents, if so inclined. I'd also be very interested to see some scientific assessment of the impact of threats of hellfire from "Christians" of one of the many nuttier varieties on the mental wellbeing of (a) a child who has no views on anything to do with God or religion (b) an atheistically inclined child.

Equally I don't think an atheist parent should drag an obviously Christian child to a Richard Dawkins lecture against that child's will. But that's only because Dawkins is so secondrate and I would do the lecture so much better. ;)


Hmm, as long as this goes both ways. Jefferson wrote (http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/draft1779.htm):


That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness

I don't believe the State should financially support atheism either.

However I expect the difference between "supporting atheism" and "refusing to support religion", and the difference between "supporting atheism" and "allowing the teaching of scientific facts inconsistent with some interpretations of some strands of religious belief" to both be lost on some readers. :lol:


I've already suggested Christophobic misotheist

Bzzt. Wrong!


I have nothing against your Christ. I am sure his blood tasted as sweet as anyone else's

I regard Christ rather as I do a number of modern lefties (for these purposes, I am not a leftie). I suspect he and Bob Brown would have got on quite superbly, whatever many Christians may think otherwise.

Do you think Nietzsche was "Christophobic"?

Basil
22-04-2007, 12:29 AM
You know Sam, who's the bigger nutcase, the nutcase or the one who engages alleged nutcase? :P
Jon, take solace in the fact that a quick visit to a shrink will cure your apparent problem, whereas I feel Sam's preponderance for
1) anonymity, and
2) shocking spelling is terminal - not to mention
3) his limited contributions to this board - none of which
4) have anything to do with chess :hmm:

Why do I have the distinct impression,
1) Sam is a hydra, and
2) I know who he is!

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2007, 01:02 AM
I don't think Sam's a hydra let alone the one Howard may suspect.

Basil
24-09-2007, 10:12 PM
Any more for any more?

eclectic
24-09-2007, 10:38 PM
the poll is invalid as one can't vote as ones religious predeliction:

COFSO (Cult of Football [Strict Observance*])#

* ie we mean real football here not heresies

# slightly ripping off OCSO ie order of citeax strict observance aka cistercians

;)@GD

Adamski
17-01-2008, 12:27 PM
My vote has just put the theists into the lead....

Southpaw Jim
17-01-2008, 09:55 PM
I voted atheist, although I'm not a true/strict atheist (ie belief in the non-existence of deities), but more of a nontheist (ie an absence of belief in deities) or a skeptic.

However, matters of religion, metaphysics, etc etc are not something that I argue/debate/talk about, as they're not issues that weigh on my mind.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 11:05 PM
Why are some names bold, and some names black (in various combinations).

Basil
17-01-2008, 11:09 PM
Why are some names bold, and some names black (in various combinations).
Black names signify that either the user is a mod or they have paid a small premium to the site owner for a few board privileges (helping to meet the cost of the board).

Bold names signify that the poster has made at least 200 posts.

------

Some bold but blue names (such as moi) have approached the site owner for blackness, but gave up on account of the response being exactly stony silence.

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2008, 11:46 PM
Black names signify that either the user is a mod or they have paid a small premium to the site owner for a few board privileges (helping to meet the cost of the board).

Bold names signify that the poster has made at least 200 posts.

------

Some bold but blue names (such as moi) have approached the site owner for blackness, but gave up on account of the response being exactly stony silence.
Thanx Gunner. Have wondered about this for some time, but never got around to asking :confused:

Southpaw Jim
18-01-2008, 07:08 AM
Me too, I was guessing that bold/non-bold had something to do with recency of activity. Good to put that one to bed :)

What kind of privileges can you pay for?

Desmond
18-01-2008, 10:10 AM
Premium membership (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2053)

Basil
17-08-2008, 11:27 PM
CameronD, a vote?

Capablanca-Fan
04-09-2008, 03:49 PM
CameronD, a vote?
And Tony D, Solo?

morebeer
04-09-2008, 04:54 PM
Agnostic might have been a useful category...and technically more accurate than atheist re my position.

eclectic
04-09-2008, 04:56 PM
Agnostic might have been a useful category...and technically more accurate than atheist re my position.

an agnostic is a fence sitter ;)

morebeer
05-09-2008, 08:18 AM
I just think the term is a little more accurate.

For me, the existence of the God someone like Jono subscribes to is as plausible as the Inner core of Alpha Centauri being composed of Woody Allen's toe nail clippings. However, disproving this categorically is difficult...think Bertrand Russell and celestial teapots.

Rincewind
05-09-2008, 08:29 AM
As Carl Saga put it...

The fate of individual human beings may not now be connected in a deep way with the rest of the universe, but the matter out of which each of us is made is intimately tied to the processes that occurred immense intervals of time and enormous distances in space away from us. Our Sun is a second- or third-generation star. All of the rocky and metallic materials we stand on, the iron in our blood, the calcium in our teeth, the carbon in our genes were produced billions of years ago in the interiors of a red giant star. We are made of star-stuff. -- The Cosmic Connection, 1973, pp. 189-90

morebeer
05-09-2008, 08:34 AM
Does that mean we are made from Woody's detritus?

Rincewind
05-09-2008, 11:58 AM
Does that mean we are made from Woody's detritus?

Probably more the other way around. Look at it from the perspective of the matter in the red giant. One eon you are an integral part of a celestial body. The next you are a piece of Woody Allen's discarded detritus. :)

Who knows what the next eon will bring?

antichrist
13-06-2009, 03:21 PM
I need an option for "beyond atheist". :lol:

The accepted term in the athesit world is "militant atheist" of which I am one. I also qualify as a rationalist that means anti-religious and should struggle against the clergy.

antichrist
13-06-2009, 03:25 PM
You know Jono,Im still trying to figure out who is the biggest nut case..you or Axiom. Its a tough call. :hmm:

I consider theists who advertise their beief in whatever forum don't respect themselves - making a fool of themselves in public.

Same as chessplayers going to a big tourney, they can't make the grade, get half a point or one point, then came back all happy and proud -reakoning they had a great tourney. Paul S was of these.

antichrist
13-06-2009, 03:27 PM
I don't think Sam's a hydra let alone the one Howard may suspect.

It ain't me! I use a religous persona for my hydra to really fool you.

Capablanca-Fan
09-05-2017, 07:23 AM
CHESS OLYMPIAD
TOURNAMENT OF NATIONS
BUENOS AIRES 1939
Passengers of the Piriápolis (http://www.ara.org.ar/chs/ajedrez/perlas/piriapolise.html)
and other ships that arrived in the port of Buenos Aires

(Lists the claimed religions of many of the major players in this historic Chess Olympiad)