AGNOSTICS: what do you believe?

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

I would have phrased it thus:

It is unlikely that any supernatural entity exists, but the proposition cannot be entirely ruled out.

Would it be fair to say you’d be somewhere on/between option 1 or 2, then?

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

I realize that that is a potential problem with the poll; not all hypothetical gods are equally likely.

I don’t understand this. Why are not all hypothetical gods equally likely? What’s the difference? Is it majority rule then? If you were an agnostic in Ancient Roman times would you consider the Roman pantheon more likely to exist than the Hebrew god? Do changing times and popularity of beliefs impact an agnostic’s lean towards one deity or another?

As a self-described agnostic, I really don’t get this statement.

[Skald_the_Rhymer]

@Superfluous_Parentheses

Would it be fair to say you’d be somewhere on/between option 1 or 2, then?

I’d be closer to to, with the codicil about the proposition being (probably) impossible to prove.

I have to leave wiggle room for Thor & Athena.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

I don’t understand this. Why are not all hypothetical gods equally likely? What’s the difference? Is it majority rule then? If you were an agnostic in Ancient Roman times would you consider the Roman pantheon more likely to exist than the Hebrew god? Do changing times and popularity of beliefs impact an agnostic’s lean towards one deity or another?

As a self-described agnostic, I really don’t get this statement.

Personally, I would consider an active (theist) god less likely than a non-intervening (deist) one, because I think an active god - one that’s actually physically involved with us humans on earth - would necessarily leave more (and easier to detect) evidence than a “creator only” type god - and I’ve not seen any evidence.

As for Skald, I think that Thor would be especially easy to detect, if he’s the one producing lightning with a hammer

[Stowed_Bob]

Reincarnation through digestion. You get scattered and incorporated into all kinds of living things, so there’s little room for memories of past lives.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Stowed_Bob

Reincarnation through digestion. You get scattered and incorporated into all kinds of living things, so there’s little room for memories of past lives.

Again, I apologize for the poor wording of the title (especially) and the poll (in the sense that I only want a general assessment of the likelihood of the existence of the (most probable) gods that you entertain).

[Hari_Seldon]

I have to wonder what you mean by “god”. I certainly don’t believe that any personal god exists. In fact, I actually feel nearly certain of that. But there is the argument that god is just the big bang from which everything evolved. Then there is the possibility that we are cellular automatons in some giant computer and then the programmer would be god, but would have no interest in individuals.

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Hari_Seldon

I have to wonder what you mean by “god”. I certainly don’t believe that any personal god exists. In fact, I actually feel nearly certain of that. But there is the argument that god is just the big bang from which everything evolved. Then there is the possibility that we are cellular automatons in some giant computer and then the programmer would be god, but would have no interest in individuals.

It doesn’t matter what I think by “god” - I’m not going into that kind of debate here; it’s way too complex and and it attracts weirdos.

If you’re unsure what to choose, you might consider picking the hypothetical god that you think is most likely.

[groo]

It is unlikely that any supernatural entity exists, but the proposition cannot be entirely ruled out.

I’ll go with that.

BTW: What’s with the cutesy paradox that a hypothetical god would require that people believe in it in the complete absence of any proof? If there were an actual god, I can’t believe he/she/it would be that narcissistic.

[kaneslatranz]

Hey. If it’s only for agnostics, does the multiple choice question make sense? =)

[Fake_Tales_of_San_Francisco]

I went for the middle option, but agree with the others that say none of the answers represent agnosticism particularly well.

I would have preferred it to say "It is impossible to determine the likelihood’. Or perhaps “I think both options are equally unlikely”.

And then it all depends on how you define god, but that’s GD territory probably.