Atheist/Agnostic/Theist/Liberal/Centrist/Conservative - poll

[rcronk]

Just answer the poll. Feel free to elaborate in a post if you wish.

[Madalch]

What poll?

[rcronk]

Sorry - it took a minute to type in all those options. There's the poll.

[Madalch]

Oh, that poll.

I'm not sure where I am on conservatism/liberalism. I consider myself a Red Tory- I'm fairly left-wing, but I'm also a monarchist.

[NewtonTrino]

Uh, yeah you need way more political options. Left/Center/Right isn't exactly enough choices as I don't identify with any of them.

[rcronk]

Uh, yeah you need way more political options. Left/Center/Right isn't exactly enough choices as I don't identify with any of them.

I didn't want the poll to be longer than the thread so I was hoping people could pick the option closest to their position rather than picking what exactly describes them. So - what is your position?

ETA:I have seen the planet X poll items and I added one here but where did the planet X poll options originate - why do we have them? Is it mocking UFOs or something? Gosh, I hope I don't derail my own thread. :)

[Cain]

You're restricted to only 20 options. I'm guessing you will not find many agnostic conservatives because agnostics are confused whereas conservatives are decisive. Oh, and I suppose all us anarcho-socialists are supposed to vote liberal, huh? Well, screw that, I'm voting contrary to my own political beliefs, and I encourage others to do the same (without publicizing it). Ha, now the secret army of Cainsyians will skew your precious poll results.

[Esperdome]

In keeping with your desire for people to vote for their best fit, I voted centrist, but I would suspect almost no one here would fit any strict pigeon-holing criteria on the liberal-centrist-conservative part.

[Damien Evans]

Where was the apatheist option?

[rcronk]

Forgive my limited choices. I wasn't trying to pigeon-hole anyone. These are generalizations - feel free to expound in a post if needed. And there's always planet x if you want to abstain.

[Shoogar]

I'm just curious why no one has selected "atheist - conservative".

[Macoy]

There should be a choice for agnostics who don't believe in any of it.

[LawnOven]

nihilists? I believe thats the planet x option.

[gumboot]

I went with agnostic liberal.

[proxywar]

agnostic/centrist.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I voted Planet X because I've decided none of the atheist options fit me. There are some things I'm slightly or very conservative on, some things I'm slightly or very liberal on and a handful of things I'm centrist on.

I'd prefer to refer to myself as an atheist issuationalist.

[rcronk]

If I were to start another thread where each person would be invited to share their exact political leanings, their exact a/theistic (non)beliefs, and comment on any correlations they see between their political and (a)theistic leanings, would that be better? I think that would be harder to quantify, but it would definitely let people not feel like their choice was a mismatch. Would you post in such a thread?

[Darth Rotor]

You're restricted to only 20 options. I'm guessing you will not find many agnostic conservatives because agnostics are confused whereas conservatives are decisive. Oh, and I suppose all us anarcho-socialists are supposed to vote liberal, huh? Well, screw that, I'm voting contrary to my own political beliefs, and I encourage others to do the same (without publicizing it). Ha, now the secret army of Cainsyians will skew your precious poll results.

*Raises clenched fist* (No :goat s were harmed by this clenching)

Fight the power!

DR

[Lanzy]

OK, took your silly poll, now tell me why you want to know.

[volatile]

Before M7 gets here to explain this at greater length, can I point out that "agnostic" is meaningless, and it is not a magic middle ground between theism and atheism. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist; one cannot simply be "agnostic". It is meaningless.

Except that the four categories - 'Strong' (gnostic) atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist and 'true believer' (gnostic theist) - do not lie on any type of continuum. They are a combination of two very different positions: An epistemological position (gnosticism/agnosticism) and an ontological position (theism/atheism). "Agnostic" is a useful category by itself so long as one is describing an epistemological position - when it is used to describe an ontological position between 'belief' and 'non-belief' for any subject it is no longer of any use, simply because it is a nonsense statement - it is the statement ~(p v ~p), which is a logical contradiction.


I don't care who is in whose 'camp'. I don't even know what you mean by 'allowable'. If everybody in the world turned around tomorrow and said that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism I still wouldn't agree because such a statement is demonstrably wrong.

You might not think that using words that have actual meanings is important in discussion, but I do. So long as people are using 'agnosticism' as an ontological position between theism and atheism, I will be pointing out to them that it is no such thing, and that no position exists. While people are asserting that they hold a logically contradictory position, I will be pointing that out to them, and it is likely the discussion will not proceed further. This is not me being pedantic about things, this is because until people are claiming a position that is at least logically valid, it is meaningless to try and discuss the soundness of their position.

It is not the label I object to, it is the position itself. I wouldn't care if the position was described as 'fluffnostastic'. The fact that 'agnostic', a word that has a real, meaningful definition, has been hijacked with this nonsense is just another unfortunate happening - not my main issue.

[Sapien]

I am an atheist. I am conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. I do not in any way consider myself centrist about religion or politics. Is anyone else this way? Which box would you check?

[volatile]

I am an atheist. I am conservative on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. I do not in any way consider myself centrist about religion or politics. Is anyone else this way? Which box would you check?

If I had those beliefs, I'd tick Atheist/Liberal, or at a push Atheist/Centrist. I think the way the term "liberalism" is used as a descriptor in politics tends to relate more to the social than the fiscal.

[rcronk]

Because of many of the replies here, I have started a related thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106526) that, instead of polling you and forcing you into a limited box, will allow you to express your exact political and a/theistic positions along with correlations you have found between these two areas of your life (if any). In the OP of that new thread, I have expressed my own leanings to start it off. Please take the time to go post there.

[ronananderson]

i don't understand, on planet x they say they cant vote, and yet they voted in this poll. oh i see they can vote in polls but not elections. What about plebiscites? Anyway the ballot was confusing.

[rcronk]

RNA fragments can only produce slightly dented chads and therefore their intent is uncertain. In an online poll, clicking the mouse is easier than punching through a chad, therefore they can vote. I'm not sure how they got an Internet connection and a mouse though. Maybe it's just people who thought that option was funny or none of the other options fit them well enough. Plebiscites aren't human - their vote doesn't count.

[billydkid]

For what it's worth, I'm a libertarian atheist. It might be interesting for some to know that 75% of the die hard Ron Paul supporters on the Ron Paul forum are also atheists. This would seem paradoxical to some, but when you consider that ALL the candidates proclaim themselves to be devout believers in the Christian fairy tale. Believing that God gave his only begotten son to be sacrificed to wash away our sins, who then was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven (which is apparently up in the sky somewhere) is acceptable in a candidate for your typical atheist, but daring not to be sure about evolution - wow, that really crosses the line.

[Cain]

I'm glad you could take this opportunity to talk about Ron Paul. You're right -- most of the hardcore Paul cultists consider themselves atheists, and I guess they now have their Messiah. Also, evolution is a proven fact... but when has Ron Paul ever allowed facts to get in the way of his outlook? The funny thing about gold bugs is that their propaganda never goes out of style; it's a stable currency -- worth exactly nothing.

[jimbob]

Liberal fundamentalist

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think a few of the right wingers on the board either withheld their votes or believe themselves to be moderates. Perhaps we need a poll asking, do you believe yourself to be a moderate but support Bush, or do you believe yourself to be a moderate and don't support Bush but support Republican positions on everything from defense to the economy?

It's just hard to believe considering how much political animosity there is in the politics threads that the board leans so heavily in one direction.

[New Ager]

agnostic/centrist.

You can't make up your mind about anything. :)

[rcronk]

For what it's worth, I'm a libertarian atheist. It might be interesting for some to know that 75% of the die hard Ron Paul supporters on the Ron Paul forum are also atheists. This would seem paradoxical to some, but when you consider that ALL the candidates proclaim themselves to be devout believers in the Christian fairy tale. Believing that God gave his only begotten son to be sacrificed to wash away our sins, who then was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven (which is apparently up in the sky somewhere) is acceptable in a candidate for your typical atheist, but daring not to be sure about evolution - wow, that really crosses the line.

I'm glad you could take this opportunity to talk about Ron Paul. You're right -- most of the hardcore Paul cultists consider themselves atheists, and I guess they now have their Messiah. Also, evolution is a proven fact... but when has Ron Paul ever allowed facts to get in the way of his outlook? The funny thing about gold bugs is that their propaganda never goes out of style; it's a stable currency -- worth exactly nothing.

This is interesting. A possible atheist/libertarian link. Could both leanings be resonating on a non-conformist or anti-leader type note? I'm not trying to judge, I'm trying to understand. When I see similarities, I look for an underlying cause. Thoughts?

[Kerberos]

Before M7 gets here to explain this at greater length, can I point out that "agnostic" is meaningless, and it is not a magic middle ground between theism and atheism. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist; one cannot simply be "agnostic". It is meaningless.

Careful study (by which I mean using 30 seconds to look the word up on dictionary.com) will reveal that the word Agnostic has several meanings. One of which is the one you champion, another being a "magic" middle ground between theism and atheism.

[Pardalis]

Perhaps we need a poll asking, do you believe yourself to be a moderate but support Bush, or do you believe yourself to be a moderate and don't support Bush but support Republican positions on everything from defense to the economy?

Wow, you should come and write the next question for our referendum, that'll sure confuse the heck out of everyone. :p

[volatile]

Careful study (by which I mean using 30 seconds to look the word up on dictionary.com) will reveal that the word Agnostic has several meanings. One of which is the one you champion, another being a "magic" middle ground between theism and atheism.

As my good mucker MobySeven is keen to point out, that definition is meaningless.

Atheism/Theism is an ontological position. Gnosticism/Agnosticism is an epistemological one. That some people do not think about this distinction long enough to realise this is neither here nor there.

Over to the good man himself:

Except that the four categories - 'Strong' (gnostic) atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist and 'true believer' (gnostic theist) - do not lie on any type of continuum. They are a combination of two very different positions: An epistemological position (gnosticism/agnosticism) and an ontological position (theism/atheism). "Agnostic" is a useful category by itself so long as one is describing an epistemological position - when it is used to describe an ontological position between 'belief' and 'non-belief' for any subject it is no longer of any use, simply because it is a nonsense statement - it is the statement ~(p v ~p), which is a logical contradiction.

I don't care who is in whose 'camp'. I don't even know what you mean by 'allowable'. If everybody in the world turned around tomorrow and said that agnosticism is a middle ground between theism and atheism I still wouldn't agree because such a statement is demonstrably wrong.

You might not think that using words that have actual meanings is important in discussion, but I do. So long as people are using 'agnosticism' as an ontological position between theism and atheism, I will be pointing out to them that it is no such thing, and that no position exists. While people are asserting that they hold a logically contradictory position, I will be pointing that out to them, and it is likely the discussion will not proceed further. This is not me being pedantic about things, this is because until people are claiming a position that is at least logically valid, it is meaningless to try and discuss the soundness of their position.

It is not the label I object to, it is the position itself. I wouldn't care if the position was described as 'fluffnostastic'. The fact that 'agnostic', a word that has a real, meaningful definition, has been hijacked with this nonsense is just another unfortunate happening - not my main issue.

To be fair, there are two types of atheist:

(1) Those who assert that they know there is no god; and

(2) Those who simply do not believe in god.

Type (1) are gnostic atheists - those who claim to know there is no god. Type (2) are agnostic atheists - those who do not claim to know there is no god, but who do not believe in one.

So a person who says, "I know with 100% certainty that there is no god," is as much an atheist as the person who says, "I don't know with certainty, but until there is any evidence of god I will not believe in it." Agnostic atheists are certainly the majority on these forums, and I would hazard a guess that they are probably the majority in general.

[New Ager]

Mainstream conservative and have always believed in God.

Never understood the atheist myth. It's not rational.

[volatile]

Never understood the atheist myth. It's not rational.

Care to, umm, expand on that? :confused:

[Pardalis]

Never understood the atheist myth. It's not rational.

Oh boy.

[rcronk]

Never understood the atheist myth. It's not rational.


:popcorn1

:duel

[Mister Agenda]

Although my state doesn't follow that trend as much as many others, I do think there is an atheism/libertarianism link. I think this is largely due to the roots of Libertarianism being heavily influenced by Objectivism. Although Rand never supported Libertarianism she was undoubtedly a major influence on it, and Objectivists tend to be atheists and are often Libertarians. The other source of atheism among Libertarians is the influx of people from a secular Liberal perspective who have become disenchanted with economic policies of their parties and find a home with the Libertarians. An opposing trend is from disaffected Conservatives who often bring their religious views with them even though they don't support militaristic Neoconservatism.

[Kerberos]

As my good mucker MobySeven is keen to point out, that definition is meaningless.
You good mucker Moby Seven is wrong and the part you quoted demonstrates very neatly that he does not understand language. Language is an intersubjective construct. The meaning of words are defined by common understandings of meaning and a common understanding of agnostic is someone who's somewhere between atheism and theism. That is an empirical fact and no amount of talk about ontological and epistomological positions can change that fact.

[volatile]

You good mucker Moby Seven is wrong and the part you quoted demonstrates very neatly that he does not understand language. Language is an intersubjective construct. The meaning of words are defined by common understandings of meaning and a common understanding of agnostic is someone who's somewhere between atheism and theism. That is an empirical fact and no amount of talk about ontological and epistomological positions can change that fact.

It doesn't matter what "common usage" says in this instance, because the "common usage" describes a position that is logically impossible, as Moby points out.

You cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in God. You either do, or you do not. If you aren't sure he exists, you're an atheist, by definition. Any linguistic fudging does not change this fact.

[thesyntaxera]

It doesn't matter what "common usage" says in this instance, because the "common usage" describes a position that is logically impossible, as Moby points out.

You cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in God. You either do, or you do not. If you aren't sure he exists, you're an atheist, by definition. Any linguistic fudging does not change this fact.

Who said being in the middle of the road meant that you simulataneously believe and don't believe. There are non-believers(atheists), there are believers(theists), and there are those that admit to not being able to know either way(agnostics)...what is so difficult to understand?

We can talk definitions, but the last time I did I was told that dictionaries are biased...which is funny because the statement seemed to imply some dictionary publishing conspiracy to keep atheists down...

Anyway...no amount of restating "your right and I am wrong" will change the fact that humans are not purely logical beings in thier thinking. Because there can't be some one who believes while not believing, the only conclusion that can be made about the middle of the road, and the people whose idea's about god reside there is that they are aren't sure...and so they are not committed to belief or non-belief..hence being in the middle of the road or in other words agnostic.

Saying it's a this/that situation undermines the fact that it isn't...logically speaking it should be easy to deduce that there is a spectrum of idea's on the subject that aren't easily classifiable as atheist or theist.

[Mobyseven]

Careful study (by which I mean using 30 seconds to look the word up on dictionary.com) will reveal that the word Agnostic has several meanings. One of which is the one you champion, another being a "magic" middle ground between theism and atheism.

Well, if the dictionary says it, it's gotta be true! Don't bother addressing the actual argument or understanding the position, because the dictionary has all the answers. Praise be to Oxford!

[Safe-Keeper]

Very interesting poll. And the answers were not very surprising.

Never understood the atheist myth. It's not rational.I find it perfectly rational to not believe in a god there's no evidence for, when science has provided me with alternatives to religious myths as explanations for how I came to be.

[volatile]

Who said being in the middle of the road meant that you simulataneously believe and don't believe. There are non-believers(atheists), there are believers(theists), and there are those that admit to not being able to know either way(agnostics)...what is so difficult to understand?

Because "agnostic" is the opposite of "gnostic"; it is not a halfway house between atheism and theism. If you believe that it is possible to ultimately know the truth of God and you believe in Him, then you are a Gnostic Theist. If you do not believe that it will ever be possible to know whether God exists but you believe in him anyway then you are an agnostic theist. You can figure out the corollary positions for yourself.

The term "agnostic" has a very specific and useful meaning. Trying to paste it onto an utterly illogical position is absurd, and I for one shan't sit round and let otherwise rational people further condemn this term to an illogical grave.

Saying it's a this/that situation undermines the fact that it isn't...logically speaking it should be easy to deduce that there is a spectrum of idea's on the subject that aren't easily classifiable as atheist or theist.

If you believe in God, you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. There's can't be, because theism is not a continuum.

If you believe there "might" be a God, then you are probably an agnostic theist.

[New Ager]

Very interesting poll. And the answers were not very surprising.

I find it perfectly rational to not believe in a god there's no evidence for, when science has provided me with alternatives to religious myths as explanations for how I came to be.

So far, God's winning.

Science is doing a poor job, or better put, atheists are doing a poor job trying to use science to explain away God.

Not working, at all.

[Safe-Keeper]

Science is doing a poor job, or better put, atheists are doing a poor job trying to use science to explain away God.Scientists don't 'using science to explain away God' more than they're using science to explain away trolls. The motive of scientists is to uncover how the world got here, how it's built up, and how it works. If, for example, new knowledge of how thunder works means people won't believe in Thor anymore, well, good, but it's really just a side-effect. The real award of science is the knowledge itself. How religions reconcile themselves with that knowledge is their business.

[thesyntaxera]

Because "agnostic" is the opposite of "gnostic"; it is not a halfway house between atheism and theism. If you believe that it is possible to ultimately know the truth of God and you believe in Him, then you are a Gnostic Theist. If you do not believe that it will ever be possible to know whether God exists but you believe in him anyway then you are an agnostic theist. You can figure out the corollary positions for yourself.

The term "agnostic" has a very specific and useful meaning. Trying to paste it onto an utterly illogical position is absurd, and I for one shan't sit round and let otherwise rational people further condemn this term to an illogical grave.



If you believe in God, you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist. There is no middle ground. There's can't be, because theism is not a continuum.

If you believe there "might" be a God, then you are probably an agnostic theist.

Good lord. What do you call a person who is undecided one way or an other?? There is a middle road even if by your standards of logic it is impossible to express.

You say theism is not a continuum when it can very easily be represented from one end to the other as a continuum. On one end absolute belief and on the other zero belief...so what is all that in between to you? Just logical fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Qualifying_agnosticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist#Definitions_and_distinctions

Just by looking at those two entries and the range of thought on the two subjects it should be easy to see how it is in fact a continuum of thought with many variations in between regardless of how tightly you would like it to be classified and divided.

[thesyntaxera]

Well, if the dictionary says it, it's gotta be true! Don't bother addressing the actual argument or understanding the position, because the dictionary has all the answers. Praise be to Oxford!

The dictionary provides a reference point, yes? A sort of agreed upon answer to certain questions that require a definition, yes? Since it is an agreed upon definition, one can usually safely rely on it's definitions to tell them quickly what some thing or some one is with a certain degree of certainty, yes? Why is it different because we are discussing atheism? Is it because you don't agree with the deifnition of an athiest, as provided by multiple sources? If so, why not? What reason does any one have to accept the argument if there isn't an agreed upon definition of what an atheist is in the debate to begin with?

[volatile]

Good lord. What do you call a person who is undecided one way or an other??

An agnostic theist, probably. I already said that.

There is a middle road even if by your standards of logic it is impossible to express.

There is no middle ground, because, as you rightly claim, that middle ground is illogical. It cannot exist.

You say theism is not a continuum when it can very easily be represented from one end to the other as a continuum. On one end absolute belief and on the other zero belief...so what is all that in between to you? Just logical fallacy?

You're still missing the point. You can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic atheist, a gnostic theist or a gnostic atheist. Those are all the possible positions. The "in betweens" you talk about are agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. They are not "agnostic".

[Kerberos]

It doesn't matter what "common usage" says in this instance, because the "common usage" describes a position that is logically impossible, as Moby points out.

You cannot simultaneously believe and not believe in God. You either do, or you do not. If you aren't sure he exists, you're an atheist, by definition. Any linguistic fudging does not change this fact.
thesyntaxera already said what needed to be said about this. If you want to insist that there are no such thing as an agnostic go right ahead, but I have no problems understanding what an agnostic beleives. Prolonging the argument is probably about as productive as watching paint dry and since I just painted...

[Pardalis]

So far, God's winning.

Why would he/she/it need to win anything?

Are you so insecure?

[New Ager]

Scientists don't 'using science to explain away God' more than they're using science to explain away trolls.



Really?! Evolution is touted all the time. And I said atheists use it, although most scientists are probably atheist. So smart, they can't see the truth.



The motive of scientists is to uncover how the world got here, how it's built up, and how it works. If, for example, new knowledge of how thunder works means people won't believe in Thor anymore, well, good, but it's really just a side-effect. The real award of science is the knowledge itself.


Science is used all the time to try and explain away God.

I don't know why that is so hard to admit.



How religions reconcile themselves with that knowledge is their business.

It seems atheists are always trying to make it their business. Banning prayer, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, etc.

[New Ager]

Why would he/she/it need to win anything?



I meant in the court of public opinion. It seems with all your massive proof, your efforts to convince people are falling on deaf ears.




Are you so insecure?

LOL!! Atheists are the ones always sticking their noses in religious situations.

It seems they are too insecure to allow others to live their own lives.

[Pardalis]

I meant in the court of public opinion. It seems with all your massive proof, your efforts to convince people are falling on deaf ears.

Exactly. If you don't want to listen, then you'll never understand.

LOL!! Atheists are the ones always sticking their noses in religious situations.

Only when these situations infringe on other people's rights.

It seems they are too insecure to allow others to live their own lives.

I have no problem with you deluding yourself, that's your business.

[Mobyseven]

The dictionary provides a reference point, yes? A sort of agreed upon answer to certain questions that require a definition, yes? Since it is an agreed upon definition, one can usually safely rely on it's definitions to tell them quickly what some thing or some one is with a certain degree of certainty, yes? Why is it different because we are discussing atheism? Is it because you don't agree with the deifnition of an athiest, as provided by multiple sources? If so, why not? What reason does any one have to accept the argument if there isn't an agreed upon definition of what an atheist is in the debate to begin with?

For Ed's sake, last time I checked the dictionary wasn't some infalliable omniscient book of knowledge. It's a book of definitions, written by people, as a compilation of words and the definitions commonly assigned to them. It is as prone to error as any other compliation written by people - either the writers can make a mistake, or in the case of the dictionary they can give the meaning of a word as it is commonly used but the way it is commonly used can be nonsensical.

I'm not saying that people don't use the word 'agnostic' in that way, and in that sense the dictionary is right to include it (last I checked 'unicorn' was still in the dictionary too). The point of all this is that the way 'agnostic' is commonly used is nonsense - it is a logical contradiction, an assertion of both p and ~p.

If you disagree, present an ****** argument. I'm sick of people saying that I'm 'obviously' wrong because just look at all the 'agnostics', as though argument from popularity magically becomes valid for their pet idea. I think you're the first to say that the commonly used definition of agnostic is correct because the dictionary says so though. That's a whole 'nother level of missing the point.

[rcronk]

For Ed's sake, last time I checked the dictionary wasn't some infalliable omniscient book of knowledge. It's a book of definitions, written by people, as a compilation of words and the definitions commonly assigned to them. It is as prone to error as any other compliation written by people - either the writers can make a mistake, or in the case of the dictionary they can give the meaning of a word as it is commonly used but the way it is commonly used can be nonsensical.

I'm not saying that people don't use the word 'agnostic' in that way, and in that sense the dictionary is right to include it (last I checked 'unicorn' was still in the dictionary too). The point of all this is that the way 'agnostic' is commonly used is nonsense - it is a logical contradiction, an assertion of both p and ~p.

If you disagree, present an ****** argument. I'm sick of people saying that I'm 'obviously' wrong because just look at all the 'agnostics', as though argument from popularity magically becomes valid for their pet idea. I think you're the first to say that the commonly used definition of agnostic is correct because the dictionary says so though. That's a whole 'nother level of missing the point.

If you think agnostic means X and your audience thinks it means Y (as evidenced through multiple dictionaries saying its common usage is Y), then you have a communication problem regardless of whether X or Y is the "correct" definition.

The real goal is to get definition/meaning X across to your audience. If you stubbornly demand that your audience must accept and learn that you mean X when you say agnostic, then you will fail to achieve your goal unless you let people know up front that you are not using the common definition by defining your terms each time you speak.

I know that bugs a lot of people, but there you have it. Perhaps I should have used other words in my poll. I apologize for the problematic wording of the poll, but it seems most people didn't trip over it too badly.

[fishbob]

I meant in the court of public opinion. It seems with all your massive proof, your efforts to convince people are falling on deaf ears.


Refusal to acknowledge reality is supposed to be some kind of virtue? Where did you get this idea? Is there an 11th commandment you aren't telling us about? Did you know that deliberate ignorance is one of the definitions of stupidity?

[Mobyseven]

If you think agnostic means X and your audience thinks it means Y (as evidenced through multiple dictionaries saying its common usage is Y), then you have a communication problem regardless of whether X or Y is the "correct" definition.

The real goal is to get definition/meaning X across to your audience. If you stubbornly demand that your audience must accept and learn that you mean X when you say agnostic, then you will fail to achieve your goal unless you let people know up front that you are not using the common definition by defining your terms each time you speak.

I know that bugs a lot of people, but there you have it. Perhaps I should have used other words in my poll. I apologize for the problematic wording of the poll, but it seems most people didn't trip over it too badly.

I don't demand that people use my definition. I recognise that language is not a static objective construct, and that definitions are malleable.

The problem, however, is that the definition of 'agnostic' commonly used is nonsensical - it asserts the logical contradiction ~(p v ~p) - and thus it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion using that definition any more than one can discuss a shape which has 3 edges and 20 vertices.

I've said all this before, expanded on it, explained it differently, and every bloody time I'm greeted with fallacies and posts bereft of any counter-argument, only to have to repeat it all over again in some other thread a couple of days later. For once I would like someone to actually address the damn argument, rather than blathering on about nonsense and 'communication breakdowns'. If you think I'm wrong, then present a damn argument. Otherwise, either admit you're wrong or shutup about it. Seriously.

[Kotatsu]

I voted planet X, because all your other alternatives contain right-wing political alternatives. I suppose "centrist" would be the closest, but that's like voting "Maine" in a "Which state do you live in?" poll, just because it is (or at least appears to be) closest to Europe.

[christie malry]

I'm certainly excluded from the poll. I'm not a liberal, I'm a socialist damnit!

[rcronk]

I'm certainly excluded from the poll. I'm not a liberal, I'm a socialist damnit!

All the liberals I know (and an increasing number of conservatives and centrists for that matter) are socialists so maybe you could vote liberal. :) I realize the poll isn't perfect. That's why I created the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106526) for you to be able to expound fully your leanings.

[rcronk]

I don't demand that people use my definition. I recognise that language is not a static objective construct, and that definitions are malleable.

The problem, however, is that the definition of 'agnostic' commonly used is nonsensical - it asserts the logical contradiction ~(p v ~p) - and thus it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion using that definition any more than one can discuss a shape which has 3 edges and 20 vertices.

I've said all this before, expanded on it, explained it differently, and every bloody time I'm greeted with fallacies and posts bereft of any counter-argument, only to have to repeat it all over again in some other thread a couple of days later. For once I would like someone to actually address the damn argument, rather than blathering on about nonsense and 'communication breakdowns'. If you think I'm wrong, then present a damn argument. Otherwise, either admit you're wrong or shutup about it. Seriously.

Fair enough. My poll options were wrong. I started the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106526) to allow people to expound their exact leanings. For the record, am I correct in saying that, according to you, the poll should have included the following categories instead:

gnostic theist
agnostic theist
agnostic atheist
gnostic atheist

...combined with the various political leanings? If not, what should the options have been?

[christie malry]

OK - did that. Not quite sure why, but it's not like it's a massive secret or anything :)

[Kotatsu]

All the liberals I know (and an increasing number of conservatives and centrists for that matter) are socialists so maybe you could vote liberal. :)

That is not a very good suggestion. No one I know who is a liberal is also a socialist, as the socialists, from the liberal's point of view, are at the other end of the spectrum, and therefore an enemy.

[rcronk]

That is not a very good suggestion. No one I know who is a liberal is also a socialist, as the socialists, from the liberal's point of view, are at the other end of the spectrum, and therefore an enemy.

Huh? I thought socialism was when "property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." The liberals I know (and many conservatives and centrists nowadays) are all for social welfare programs, universal healthcare, any kind of wealth redistribution policies you can think of, environmentalism controlling property rights, etc. I live in the U.S. - maybe that's a difference in terms. Perhaps "liberal" is not a well defined term across countries or perhaps even within a country. Hmm.

[rcronk]

OK - did that. Not quite sure why, but it's not like it's a massive secret or anything :)

I'm trying to understand better if there are correlations between people's politics and their a/theistic leanings, that's why. I asked you a question on the other thread, by the way, if you want to answer it over there. Thanks for participating.

[Kotatsu]

Huh? I thought socialism was when "property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community." The liberals I know (and many conservatives and centrists nowadays) are all for social welfare programs, universal healthcare, any kind of wealth redistribution policies you can think of, environmentalism controlling property rights, etc. I live in the U.S. - maybe that's a difference in terms. Perhaps "liberal" is not a well defined term across countries or perhaps even within a country. Hmm.

I live in Sweden. A liberal here is a person who basically does what the conservatives say, because they usually have more power. They are for grades in school at low levels, the establishment of a national literary canon, language tests for citizenship for immigrants, but against high taxes (especially for the already rich). As far as I am aware, the socialists here are against all that, except for the last part, which they are for.

The conservative and the liberals are definitely all right-wing, non-socialist people here. However, they are "for" universal healthcare, social welfare, the environment and so on, as otherwise they'd never have a chance to get into the parliament. However, inasmuch as actions speak more than words, these are not policies they are prepared to follow, unless public opinion forces them.

[rcronk]

I live in Sweden. A liberal here is a person who basically does what the conservatives say, because they usually have more power. They are for grades in school at low levels, the establishment of a national literary canon, language tests for citizenship for immigrants, but against high taxes (especially for the already rich). As far as I am aware, the socialists here are against all that, except for the last part, which they are for.

The conservative and the liberals are definitely all right-wing, non-socialist people here. However, they are "for" universal healthcare, social welfare, the environment and so on, as otherwise they'd never have a chance to get into the parliament. However, inasmuch as actions speak more than words, these are not policies they are prepared to follow, unless public opinion forces them.

Wow! I wasn't aware of how differently defined these political terms are across countries. I apologize. Hmm - has there been any effort to come up with political (or a/theistic for that matter) terms that can be used across countries that are consistent, etc.? This causes a problem in this poll obviously, but I would imagine that it could cause other problems too. Labels suck, but we don't always have a paragraph to define our positions so it would be nice to cover a paragraph of position with a short phrase. I apologize for my ignorance, any help with term definitions would be helpful. Thanks.

[Safe-Keeper]

LOL!! Atheists are the ones always sticking their noses in religious situations.

It seems atheists are always trying to make it their business. Banning prayer, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, etc.Do you really not see the irony here?

Really?! Evolution is touted all the time. And I said atheists use itThis might surprise you, NA, but in most of the civilized world, evolution is accepted and taught as the fact it is, and Genesis is disregarded as the myth it was always intended to be (the Jews never intended for it to be taken litterally - Genesis as an actual historical reference is a later Christian interpretation). It is only in strongly religious countries such as Turkey and the United States, and in dictatorships such as North Korea where dictators rewrite history to make themselves the gods of their citizens, that the Theory of Evolution is not almost universally accepted.

I meant in the court of public opinion. It seems with all your massive proof, your efforts to convince people are falling on deaf ears.That pretty much sums up the situation in large parts of the States, yes. No matter how much evidence we throw at you, you stay in your ignorant limbo for reasons unknown.

[Mobyseven]

Fair enough. My poll options were wrong. I started the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106526) to allow people to expound their exact leanings. For the record, am I correct in saying that, according to you, the poll should have included the following categories instead:

gnostic theist
agnostic theist
agnostic atheist
gnostic atheist

...combined with the various political leanings? If not, what should the options have been?

Pretty much, yeah. There are issues of course regarding the definition of 'god', but that's a separate (but related) issue.

I probably would have just started a thread saying, "Describe your religious and/or spiritual beliefs and how they interact with your political beliefs," even though then there would be no poll. Honestly, the forum software doesn't allow enough options to cover a wide enough range of political and 'spiritual' positions to be useful (imho).

I think the thread is a good idea, mind you - but I would have focused more on discussion than on a poll that may make people feel pigeonholed. For example, the liberal/socialist issue that has just come up - while liberals may be for universal healthcare (as an example), it isn't necessary that they are. As a general rule (i.e. WARNING: Oversimplification ahead!) liberalism has as its primary focus the rights of the individual, while socialism has as its primary focus the good of society. A liberal and a socialist may agree on a number of issues (such as, possibly, universal healthcare), but the reasoning behind their respective positions may differ dramatically.

[christie malry]

Second Mobyseven, although I'd add that part of the problem with the poll is that the centre ground tends to shift from country to country, as Kotatsu has noted. In the US the centre is further right than even the UK. In the UK, all three main parties occupy marginally different areas of the centre ground, and at the centre is the most middling party of all, called the Liberal Democrats.

Although of course the result of 18 years of Thatcherism (to oversimplify - adoption of monetarism actually started under Wilson I believe) was that the centre ground shifted waaaay to the right and the centre ground Labour have sought to occupy for the last 11 years is basically a continuation of the Thatcherite legacy with a patina of social responsibility thrown in amongst the tabloid scare-mongering.

[Bododio]

I went for agnostic/centrist, not because I am or am not those things, but because it seemed to be the choice closest to my actual position. I don't care if there is or isn't a god. In addition I distrust the two-party system in the US, and usually vote for the candidate I believe will cause the least harm.

[rcronk]

Pretty much, yeah. There are issues of course regarding the definition of 'god', but that's a separate (but related) issue.

I probably would have just started a thread saying, "Describe your religious and/or spiritual beliefs and how they interact with your political beliefs," even though then there would be no poll. Honestly, the forum software doesn't allow enough options to cover a wide enough range of political and 'spiritual' positions to be useful (imho).

I think the thread is a good idea, mind you - but I would have focused more on discussion than on a poll that may make people feel pigeonholed. For example, the liberal/socialist issue that has just come up - while liberals may be for universal healthcare (as an example), it isn't necessary that they are. As a general rule (i.e. WARNING: Oversimplification ahead!) liberalism has as its primary focus the rights of the individual, while socialism has as its primary focus the good of society. A liberal and a socialist may agree on a number of issues (such as, possibly, universal healthcare), but the reasoning behind their respective positions may differ dramatically.

Right, that is exactly what I did in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=106526) I started that I mentioned to you earlier entitled "Describe your politics, a/theism, and interrelations between the two topics here". Looks like I read your mind - do I get the million dollar paranormal prize?

Please go over to that thread and post. I am interested in what you have to say. Thanks.

[billydkid]

Although my state doesn't follow that trend as much as many others, I do think there is an atheism/libertarianism link. I think this is largely due to the roots of Libertarianism being heavily influenced by Objectivism. Although Rand never supported Libertarianism she was undoubtedly a major influence on it, and Objectivists tend to be atheists and are often Libertarians. The other source of atheism among Libertarians is the influx of people from a secular Liberal perspective who have become disenchanted with economic policies of their parties and find a home with the Libertarians. An opposing trend is from disaffected Conservatives who often bring their religious views with them even though they don't support militaristic Neoconservatism.Or it could be that libertarians are inclined toward rationality. Somebody talked about Ron Paul being our saviour. That is so far off the mark I can barely respond. What we love about Ron Paul is that he DOESN'T want to be our saviour or determine how we should live our lives. He doesn't believe any man or government of men has either the capability or the right to "run the economy" or determine the fate of others. He believes the sole legitimate role of government is to protect our inherent rights as describe by the Declaration of Independence. Someone describe the Ron Paul movement as a cult of personality - well, yeah, if your most boring civics professor is your idea of a charismatic, cult leader. It is about nothing except the ideas. As it happens, Dr. Paul has been the only person on the national stage advocating liberty and talking the dangers of an over powerful and intrusive national government. Both the left and the right advocate strong, centralized governmental power, both are authoritarian, they simply have different agendas for that government to further.

[New Ager]

Exactly. If you don't want to listen, then you'll never understand.



We've listened and we aren't buying it.




Only when these situations infringe on other people's rights.



Translation: I am intolerant of religious beliefs.



I have no problem with you deluding yourself, that's your business.

Rather ironic coming from someone who denies the existence of God.

[New Ager]

Refusal to acknowledge reality is supposed to be some kind of virtue? Where did you get this idea? Is there an 11th commandment you aren't telling us about? Did you know that deliberate ignorance is one of the definitions of stupidity?

Considering you deliberately deny the existence of God, I think you meet one of those definitions.

[New Ager]

That is not a very good suggestion. No one I know who is a liberal is also a socialist, as the socialists, from the liberal's point of view, are at the other end of the spectrum, and therefore an enemy.

You must live in a strange country where liberal means something different. In the US, the next step from liberal is socialist. In fact, many liberal Dems have socialist leanings. National health care, environmental kookism, high taxes, etc.

[New Ager]

This might surprise you, NA, but in most of the civilized world, evolution is accepted and taught as the fact it is...



It doesn't surprise me that is prevalent. Liberalism has brainwashed much of the world. Although, I doubt it is most.



..and Genesis is disregarded as the myth it was always intended to be (the Jews never intended for it to be taken litterally - Genesis as an actual historical reference is a later Christian interpretation).



I haven't commented on Genesis. So.



It is only in strongly religious countries such as Turkey and the United States, and in dictatorships such as North Korea where dictators rewrite history to make themselves the gods of their citizens, that the Theory of Evolution is not almost universally accepted.



Yeah, it's a theory.




That pretty much sums up the situation in large parts of the States, yes. No matter how much evidence we throw at you, you stay in your ignorant limbo for reasons unknown.

Well, you are throwing something, but it isn't evidence...or even common sense.

[Mobyseven]

You must live in a strange country where liberal means something different. In the US, the next step from liberal is socialist. In fact, many liberal Dems have socialist leanings. National health care, environmental kookism, high taxes, etc.

If by 'a strange country' you mean 'the rest of the world', you'd still be wrong (though less blatantly arrogant). Your ignorance of what 'liberalism' and 'socialism' is has been noted, however.

[New Ager]

If by 'a strange country' you mean 'the rest of the world', you'd still be wrong (though less blatantly arrogant). Your ignorance of what 'liberalism' and 'socialism' is has been noted, however.

LOL!! It seems I have stepped on another liberal's toes.

They tend to not admit who they are. Typical.

But, please enlighten us on what you think socialism and liberalism are.

Get ready for evasion and/or comedy as liberalism is cleaned up to make it sellable.

[thesyntaxera]

LOL!! It seems I have stepped on another liberal's toes.

They tend to not admit who they are. Typical.

But, please enlighten us on what you think socialism and liberalism are.

Get ready for evasion and/or comedy as liberalism is cleaned up to make it sellable.


Which liberalism are you refering to? Your perception of what liberalism is? Actual liberalism which emphasizes the liberty of the individual? Hannity and Rush's version of liberalism? Neoliberalism? There are many veins of liberalism, so piling them all together isn't go to do you much good in understanding any of them...please demarcate what you are referring to.

Socialism simply is the emphasis of the betterment of society for the collective of individuals that reside within it. It is much more complicated of course, but that is the gist.

What is typical of those of your apparent persuasion is that no amount of reasoning will alter your preconceived notions.

[billydkid]

Which liberalism are you refering to? Your perception of what liberalism is? Actual liberalism which emphasizes the liberty of the individual? I don't believe that is actually the case in terms of what we know as liberalism in this country. Economic liberty and personal liberty are inseparable. Unless, of course, you are talking about classical liberalism/libertarianism. The whole PC thing has its roots in what passes for liberalism in this country. The left tends to be a big advocate of free speech - that they approve of. The right has never been real big on free speech altogether.

[Mobyseven]

LOL!! It seems I have stepped on another liberal's toes.

They tend to not admit who they are. Typical.

But, please enlighten us on what you think socialism and liberalism are.

Get ready for evasion and/or comedy as liberalism is cleaned up to make it sellable.

Psst...I already posted on the difference between liberalism and socialism, just a couple of posts before you barged in with your nonsense. Go back one frikkin' page and read it.

If you'd like a strawman to argue against however, might I suggest defining liberalism as 'a political system that advocates baby-eating' and socialism as 'a political system that describes the best ways to roast a baby'. At least then your trolling will be amusing.

[GreyICE]

Agnostic/skeptic, and to expand on that I believe that not only is it impossible to make any judgements on the existence of a higher being(s), I believe it is functionally impossible and irrational to make any statements about their existence or lack thereof.

For my politics, I'm a liberal, most of the time, I guess. I hate Bush, and that's conservative right now.

[Kotatsu]

Wow! I wasn't aware of how differently defined these political terms are across countries. I apologize. Hmm - has there been any effort to come up with political (or a/theistic for that matter) terms that can be used across countries that are consistent, etc.? This causes a problem in this poll obviously, but I would imagine that it could cause other problems too. Labels suck, but we don't always have a paragraph to define our positions so it would be nice to cover a paragraph of position with a short phrase. I apologize for my ignorance, any help with term definitions would be helpful. Thanks.

No offence, but yours is a common mistakes among Americans. I am not very interested in politics, and am afraid I cannot answer your questions. Even such generic labels as "right wing", "left wing" and "centrist" would be perceived differently in different countries, even when words ending in "-ism" are left out (I generally abhor these words). To the extent that I am at all aware of what politics is like in other countries, I believe that should such labels exist, the two large American political parties would be considered more or less the same.

You must live in a strange country where liberal means something different. In the US, the next step from liberal is socialist. In fact, many liberal Dems have socialist leanings. National health care, environmental kookism, high taxes, etc.

How often do you leave your home village?