REVISED poll for atheists only

[Speck Tater]

Poll question: REVISED poll for atheists only

After much criticism about the choices in my previous poll, here is the revised poll suggested by DU user cleanhippie

For self-identified atheists:

(On Edit: Disclaimer: I am an atheist. I would vote B, but since it is my poll I will not vote so that my own personal bias is not included.)

[Kennah]

1. Will a flag be thrown for my vote?

I chose "B: I do not believe there is a god"

Technically, I'm an agnostic pantheist.

[T Wolf]

2. I'll be the first A. answer. I do not think that such a thing exists. The first choice asserts

that belief (or fact if the belief is correct).

The second choice leaves open the possibility and accepts that others think/believe it does exist but does not subscribe to that belief.

[cleanhippie]

3. Better, but why the need for disclaimers?

You create a possible bias with that.

Nonetheless, it seems the results are as expected, as we thought, as we explained to you.

[Speck Tater]

8. Point taken. Disclaimers removed.

And my own bias stated openly.

[Grey]

4. Got it wrong again?

I don't believe there are any gods/god. Yes? No?

My poll would be; Why do people waste so much time with this?

[PassingFair]

5. He's attempting to prove that our lack of belief in gods is as unfounded as his beliefs in gods.

FAIL

[Speck Tater]

6. Disclaimer: I am an atheist. I do not believe that any god or gods exist.

Since it's my poll, I will refrain from voting and introducing my own bias, but if I were to vote, I would vote B.

Now, what is it you think I'm trying to prove?

[PassingFair]

7. This:

"The point I'm trying to prove is that most people who call themselves atheists consider atheism to mean a positive belief in the non-existence of God, as opposed to it's "technically" true meaning, a lack of any belief one way or the other."

[Speck Tater]

9. I believe that is true. As an atheist myself, I follow the "technical" meaning of the word.

But I think that a lot of people follow a broader interpretation.
How do you deduce from that that I am a theist?

[PassingFair]

10. Now you know that you are wrong.

You seem to want to argue that
atheists KNOW that there are no
gods.

I have never had that argument with
an actual atheist.

THAT is why I thought you were a theist.

My bad.

[Speck Tater]

11. Interesting.

In my experience, most every atheist I have discussed the subject with takes the stand that he or she DOES believe that there is NO God, as opposed to the stand that he or she accepts the possibility that there may or may not be a God, but declines to believe either alternative.

That's why I did the poll. I wanted to find out if my preconceived notion was true or false. What is truly odd is that in the first poll the options made a point of stating that "lack of belief" admits
the possibility that God exists, while "belief of lack" does not. In that poll over 90% selected "belief of lack" over "lack of belief". However, in the second poll, where it was not explicitly pointed out that "lack of belief" admits of the possibility of the existence of God, the majority are voting the opposite way.

I think this is more a psychological phenomenon than a matter of beliefs or lack thereof, which is rather telling. The same two options as in the present poll could be written A) It is not possible that God exists. and B) It is possible that God exists. People who call themselves atheist, I believe, are more willing to say "I do not believe that God exists." and less willing to say "It is possible that God exists." even though the two statements cover the identical ground logically. (I.e., both statements include and exclude the same set of possible truth values for an exhaustive enumeration of possible statements about the existence and.or non-existence of God.)

[PassingFair]

15. Except you still have not defined "god".

If you are asking most atheists if they believe
in a grandfatherly figure who impregnated a
human woman with his own self, then you might
have people saying that they don't "believe"
that.

Hell, most theists don't really believe that.

I'm done with this for now.

:hi:

[Speck Tater]

21. I know, dammit!

That's just too hard to do and keep the poll a reasonable size. It's either that or enumerate the various god possibilities and ask for a stance on each.

A) I am an atheist and I do not believe in Zeus.
B) I am an atheist and I believe that Zeus does not exist.
C) I am an atheist and I do not believe in Jehovah.
D) I am an atheist and I believe that Jehovah does not exist.
... etc...

On the other hand I'm sure there are loads of theists who don't believe in Zeus OR Jehovah. And then there's the Buddhist sect that believes the Christian God is a god alright, but is a deluded god because He believes Himself to be the creator, when in fact, He is only one of many gods, none of whom is the creator because the universe has always existed (as an infinite series of big bangs and big collapses) and has no beginning.

And maybe the universe itself has intelligence and self awareness by virtue of a neural-network-like matrix of electrostatic interactions between subatomic particles. Would that be a "god"?

[cleanhippie]

33. This is not about any definition of the word "god."

Its been about whether atheists have a belief or a lack of belief, nothing more.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

22. That's odd because I've NEVER

run into an atheist with an active belief that a deity doesn't exist, at least in real life. I've seen a few on the internet, but they're not a majority or even a sizable minority of the entire atheist population.

[Speck Tater]

25. That IS odd. Odd and interesting. It certaily bears further study. nt

[cleanhippie]

12. So Speck Tater, what are we learning here?

Or maybe the question should be what have you learned here?

[valerief]

13. Atheism is not a belief. nt

[cleanhippie]

14. Well, WE know that. I want to know if he does.

[Speck Tater]

19. Yeah, that's right.

"True" atheism is NOT a belief, obviously. Quite the contrary. It is a lack of belief. That is a point I have NEVER disputed. (I'm not sure where people got the idea I was debating that point. I'm not. I was debating how the average person DEFINES atheism in their own mind. My point was that I believed that the average person DEFINES atheism, in their own mind, as a belief in the non-existence of God, and that as a consequence, the DICTIONARY includes that as one definition of "atheism". I'm really sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.)

I suspected that most atheists had a belief in the non-existence of God. If this sample is any indicator then my opinion was wrong, and most atheists are also agnostic, and truly have no belief one way or the other. However, the previous poll had the opposite result, so I still wonder how many atheists would agree with the statement "It is possible that God might exist." Of course any "true" atheist would agree, because they have no a priori belief one way or the other, and so admit all possibilities, however unlikely, for which they hold no contrary belief. But I also suspect that many atheists who say "I do not belief in God" would NOT say "It is possible that God exists." In other words, I think maybe their intellectual stance is different from their gut level stance.

I could, however, be wrong about that too. :)

And for the record, over the years I myself have drifted from "I don't believe in God" to "I believe God does not exist" and back again many times, so I am not strongly attached to any particular position. (Even though I may argue strongly for one position or the other from time to time.)

[beam me up scottie]

40. "Of course any "true" atheist would agree" WTF?

So now you're the decider of all things atheist?

I put sugar on my porridge.

[cleanhippie]

16. I guess he ran off.

[PassingFair]

17. Choir practice....

:hi:

[Speck Tater]

20. Real life duties call.

I'm caring for an elderly relative with terminal cancer. Maybe looking death in the face is what has me pondering these issues yet again.

[toddaa]

28. nothing

I think it's a banneable offense to learn something on DU.

[cleanhippie]

34. You just may be right!

[cleanhippie]

18. Would love to know who is choosing "A".

I am willing to bet, most of them are our theist zealots trying to skew the poll.

Any of you willing to identify yourselves?

[Speck Tater]

26. Notice post #23?

Somebody doesn't like YOUR question either. People can be sooooo hard to please!

[cleanhippie]

32. No one is willing to admit they noted choice "A"?

Color me not surprised.

[KaoriMitsubishi]

23. Leading questions...again.

So when is the honest poll coming? Call it "The Revised Revised Poll..."

[Speck Tater]

24. Not my questions. Talk to "cleanhippie".

Note to cleanhippie: Hard to please everyone, isn't it?

[darkstar3]

27. Maybe you should stop trying to paint people into corners.

[cleanhippie]

30. Leading?

What are your suggestions?

[Speck Tater]

37. Good luck getting anything helpful. ;) nt

[GliderGuider]

29. So this poll asks "Are you a strong atheist or a weak atheist?"

And it still fails the test of containing an implicit definition of the word "god". What about someone who believes in an inherent consciousness that emerges from the universal interconnection of holons, but thinks the xian god is an amusing but childish fantasy? How would they vote?

[cleanhippie]

31. This whole thing has never been about the definition of "god" at all.

Its been about whether atheists have a belief or a lack of belief, nothing more.

[PassingFair]

35. In what? nt

[cleanhippie]

38. You are being obtuse.

in A god, of course. That word can be defined however each atheist wants to define it for themselves. If they believe in that god, then they are not an atheist at all, and the poll does not apply to them.
If they are an atheist, then they should choose whether they "believe there is a god" or if they "lack belief in a god."

It's not rocket science and it's really quite obvious and simple. Why are you trying to make it difficult?

[beam me up scottie]

41. Because it isn't "really quite obvious and simple".

Atheism can be both explicit and implicit.

[cleanhippie]

42. Then don't take the poll.

See, it is just that simple.

[beam me up scottie]

43. When did you stop beating your wife?

That's a simple question too.

[cleanhippie]

45. Never. I still do.

we are into that kind of thing.

See, a simple answer.

[beam me up scottie]

48. It's only simple for you.

Now who's being obtuse?

[cleanhippie]

49. Still just you.

What are we arguing about again?

[beam me up scottie]

50. Hypocrisy. You didn't like it when Speck tater defined atheism.

And now you're continuing the same proud R/T tradition. :patriot:

[cleanhippie]

51. No, you are trying to define "god".

Atheism is already defined: lack of belief. thats literally what the word means.

YOU are trying to inject "god" and its infinite definitions into thin, not me.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Quite the opposite. Your poll is begging the question.

And you can't answer it.

[cleanhippie]

56. I disagree.

You seem to be begging the question, wanting me to answer it, and I have, just not to your liking.

Oh yeah, and its not my poll.

[beam me up scottie]

58. If it's not your poll why continue to defend it?

You seem to be awfully invested in it.

It's a ridiculous poll based on the idea that defining one's atheism is as simple as picking a favourite colour.

Mine is green, btw.

Because there are so many different shades of green.

So many, in fact, that I don't think I'll ever see all of them.

;)

[cleanhippie]

60. Its fun, and I usually learn something new along the way.

need I a better reason?


It's a ridiculous poll based on the idea that defining one's atheism is as simple as picking a favourite colour.

To me what is ridiculous is the assertion that there is more than belief/lack of belief when referring to atheism.

Mine is green, btw.

Because there are so many different shades of green.

So many, in fact, that I don't think I'll ever see all of them.

Uh,thats nice.


I can certainly ask you the same question, why are you so invested?

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

61. Despite our differing views on spirituality, I've learned much from GliderGuider.

If you pay attention maybe someday you can say the same.

[cleanhippie]

62. uh, okay.

maybe if you hadn't of gotten in the way...

twice...

[beam me up scottie]

64. You responsed to requests for clarification by posting "Then don't take the poll".

Twice.

[cleanhippie]

66. No, I didn't

Never once asked for clarification.

[beam me up scottie]

68. Wtf? Seriously? GliderGuider and Passing Fair both asked you for clarification.

Your post #31:

cleanhippie (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. This whole thing has never been about the definition of "god" at all.
Its been about whether atheists have a belief or a lack of belief, nothing more.

Requests for clarification:

PassingFair (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #31
35. In what? nt

[cleanhippie]

70. My bad.

I thought you said I had asked for clarification. My mistake.

[GliderGuider]

36. "a belief or a lack of belief" in what????

I believe in a conscious universe, but not a god. What am I? I can't even tell if I'd qualify as an atheist or not according to the implicit assumptions of this poll...

[cleanhippie]

39. Then don't take the poll

If you are not even sure you are an atheist, don't take the poll.

[GliderGuider]

44. It would help if you qualified the term god a bit.

If you mean "The Abrahamic God of Christianity, Judaism and Islam," then I'm a strong or explicit atheist. By other definitions I'm not. I've been told I'm an animist, for example. Is an animist who believes that the Abrahamic God and any other personified, objectified gods don't exist still an atheist? Who gets to define god, who gets to define atheist?

In a sense I believe that I am god. I certainly believe that I exist (well, on some days and in some ways, anyway) So am I an atheist? What belief do I need to exclude, in your opinion, to qualify?

[cleanhippie]

46. Why?

there either is or there is not a belief in a god.

That word can be defined however each atheist wants to define it for themselves. If they believe in that god, then they are not an atheist at all, and the poll does not apply to them.
If they are an atheist, then they should choose whether they "believe there is a god" or if they "lack belief in a god."

This is about having or not having a belief. Defining "god" is not necessary in this exercise.

But hey, feel free to improve this and post your own poll. Good luck.

[beam me up scottie]

47. "What belief do I need to exclude, in your opinion, to qualify?"

Nicely done. :thumbsup:

[cleanhippie]

52. all of them.

if you believe, then you are not an atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Name them.

I'll wait.

:popcorn:

[cleanhippie]

57. name what?

what is it you are waiting for?

[beam me up scottie]

59. All of the gods you claim GliderGuider is supposed to reject .

Focus.

[cleanhippie]

63. I did already, it was a comprehensive list.

Any god that one can think of.

Are we done yet? This is getting old.

[beam me up scottie]

65. Yeah, nice try but you need to name the ones we can't think of as well.

You're new to this, aren't you?

If you think it gets old imagine how the rest of us feel.

[cleanhippie]

67. Nice try at what?

I'm not the one trying to define the word god, you are.

Now you are going in circles.

Are you speaking for more than just yourself here. Who are "the rest of us"?

[beam me up scottie]

69. Avoidance.

If you are going to define a person's atheism you need to specify what gods they are supposed to accept or reject.

Obviously I can't speak for every atheist who has been told what they believed and didn't for years in this forum, but they have voiced their own frustration in several recent threads.

Your continued obtuseness would be amusing if your pretense was at all original.

Been there, done this, would love to see something new.

Unfortunately your inadequate definitions are just more of the same.

[cleanhippie]

71. Dude, atheists reject all gods, not just some of them.

That is what makes an atheist an atheist. If anyone is being obtuse, it is you.

[beam me up scottie]

72. Really? How can one reject something that cannot be defined? Something they've no knowledge of?

Darkstar nailed it in post #27:

"Maybe you should stop trying to paint people into corners."

It's really very simple; people don't like to be told what they believe.

By anyone.

Dude.

[cleanhippie]

73. ANd thats it exactly!

It's really very simple; people don't like to be told what they believe.

If an atheist is someone who does not believe, how am I telling anyone what to believe?

[beam me up scottie]

76. No, it's not about telling them what to believe, it's about telling them what they believe.

Or don't.

An offense that has been committed countless times in this forum and one I have never been able to explain to people who aren't it-getters.

Once I explored my own atheism (and that of others) I realized that it is so much more complicated than just positive and negative beliefs.

See toddaa's post http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=267565&mesg_id=267592 for more clarification.

Or google explicit/implicit atheism. I'm not being snarky about it, I just don't know how to explain it any better.

Every non-believer, just like every believer, deserves the right to define their own beliefs or lack of them.

[cleanhippie]

77. Fair enough.

I don't necessarily agree with you on all points, but I see what you are getting at.

[GliderGuider]

74. What I'm trying to understand is

Does the concept of an emergent consciousness that arises from the complexity of the interconnection between all the elements of the universe qualify as a "god concept". Because that's what I believe in. The belief is untestable by purely material means and is utterly subjective - just like a belief in a god. However, the quality that I believe in lacks some important characteristics we usually ascribe to gods, like conceptual boundedness and some degree of anthropomorphism. Given this belief, am I an atheist?

[cleanhippie]

75. Are you asking my opinion?

If so, I am willing to give it, not debate "the concept of an emergent consciousness that arises from the complexity of the interconnection between all the elements of the universe", although I would like to learn more about what you are talking about, as I have little understanding of that.

Based on the aforementioned and this.."that's what I believe in. The belief is untestable by purely material means and is utterly subjective", if you consider that to be "god", it is my opinion that no, you do not meet the definition of an atheist. If your belief is not what you consider to be "god" but something else entirely, then yes, you do meet the definition of atheist.

[GliderGuider]

78. Thanks for a very reasonable response. Here are some thoughts in return.

The question of whether I consider the concept of an emergent universal consciousness to be "god" is really the core question. It's god-like in some ways, because it forms the essential ground quality of the universe. However, it seems to me that most people consider gods to be active in the universe in some sense, where this concept isn't. It's just an emergent quality of the universe.

In terms of what this concept "is", it has at its root the concept of "interbeing" as described by Vietnamese Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh. This is the idea that everything "contains" everything else. An example is a simple sheet of paper. It contains not just fibers from a tree, but the rain that helped the tree to grow, the logger that cut the tree, his wife who made the logger's lunch, the farmers who grew the food that made the lunch, the oil-workers who pumped the oil that became the gasoline that powered the trucks that brought the food to the store where his wife bought it and took it home to make his lunch, etc. Essentially it's the idea that everything in the universe is the tip of a chain of dependencies, and that if we follow that chain back far enough we discover that it includes everything else in the universe.

"Emergent universal consciousness" takes this a step further, starting from the idea that complex adaptive systems develop emergent properties (properties that can't be predicted from the physical structure of the system). It's like the way that "mind" is thought to emerge from the ultra-complex interconnections of the physical brain. At some point the behaviour of such a system is indistinguishable from consciousness. So the theory says that since the universe is the most complex system there can be (thanks to its infinite degree of interconnection), and if consciousness can arise from such a system (and we are a living example that it can) then the universe has to be considered as a conscious system at some level.

Is this a useful idea? In some domains it is, in some it isn't. The universe can be modeled scientifically without taking this possibility into account - except perhaps at the quantum level. However in the personal, subjective domain in which we all live our lives, it can be very useful. For me it promotes the idea that if I bring myself "into alignment with the universe" - which for me means recognizing, accepting and responding to what actually is, rather than reacting to my interpretations, preferences and preconceptions about what is - I function better in the world. "Functioning better in the world" can look an awful lot like the universe responding consciously to my actions, and reciprocating in kind.

Is that God? No. Am I an atheist? To a Christian or a Muslim I am, but to a Buddhist, Taoist or Advaitist maybe not so much.

[rrneck]

79. "What am I?"

Human.

[frogmarch]

55. There are no gods.

However, that's not to say there won't be someday.